An Old Thought Resurrected

     While looking through some old flash-drives I ran across a folder containing this journaled moment in a meditation that seemed worthy of a late entry. The date is uncertain but I estimate it was made approximately 8 years ago when I moved to Southern Dharma and began journaling about many of my experiences. Dharma was my dog.

*******

      Yesterday I made the remark that Dharma had died so that I could  make this journey. And today, all of a sudden, I realized that this is exactly what Christians say about Christ. So I asked myself if I meant the same thing. Do I mean that Dharma knowingly, willingly, and with intent, caused or was instrumental, in getting a tumor so that I might move to the mountains?  No! Of course not; so what exactly do I mean by that?
     Well, I mean that her death made it easier for me to make this move; I couldn't take her with me, and my heart would not allow me to give her away. She was an active part of my life up to that time, and in fact, she was part of me. 
     Now what do I mean by that? In what way can a dog be a part of me? I guess I mean that because she was influential in my life, that she was a catalyst for me to change in numerous ways which helped me become the person I am today (however large or small a way that might be) - she has been an active influence in my life. In the same way that we might say that 'who we are is what we do' - or that 'what we think is who we are' -  then in a similar way, her effect on me makes her part of me. In some way we are the same; she is me. And, I suppose, I am her as well. (Though I’m still not totally clear on what that means right now, it feels accurate if not easily explained.) And I suppose the Christians can maintain in the same way, that if Jesus gave his life for them, then He is a part of them as well. I personally can not. But I can see, intellectually at least, how it might work for them.
  So, leaving all religious argument aside, it would seem that spiritually speaking, what I was meaning was that Dharma’s effect on my life makes her a part of my life; a part of me. This makes sense to me at some level beyond the merely intellectual. It seems to correspond with the idea that we are all connected in life - by life itself - even if we are talking about someone or some thing which is twice, x10, or a million times, removed. Regardless of time or distance, the idea is that everything is connected, and those people or things which are close enough in proximity to directly affect us, to make an impact on our existence, or to influence our lives in some way, are actually a large part of us through this impact.
     Now this does not make as much sense as it did when I was just thinking it, but it does bring me to the second thing I was thinking. If I look at a picture of Dharma, or Christ, or my parents, or anything that I see as being influential in me being where I am today, then I am honoring them, or it, by my being alive as I am today. And this is perhaps at least one meaning of, or reason for, an object on an alter. (Granted there are those who would find this overly simplistic and ridiculous, but it is one way of looking at it: one way it is meaningful to have something on an altar and talk to it or silently offer one’s gratitude.)
     Let me take this a step further. What about the cabbage I am preparing to eat? The breath of air I am about to take, or for that matter anything which I am about to make use of? Does this act not require, in the same way, a manner of gratitude to the cabbage or the air, for giving itself to us, to benefit us? I mean it seems to me that once again I can get caught in the word game and say that a cabbage can’t choose to give itself to me, or that it is just there for me to use (or if I really want to be Christian I can say that God put it there for me to use). Let’s forget this mind game where we give responsibility to God and, for a moment think about this as a new idea - a new meaning for "a sense of connection." The idea that perhaps the cabbage may be here for me but also, that I am here for the cabbage as well – this is interesting. 
     Perhaps the Buddhist idea of "skillful means" in this instant can refer to the fact that the cabbage, the air, or anything we put our proverbial hands on in this life are affected for good or ill by our actions. Now our decisions with regard to these issues, and our subsequent actions, are personal. Each of us must make our own decisions as to how we are to proceed in life. But it seems to me that the manner in which we grow our crops will affect the cabbage on our table, the decisions we make about our air will have a direct effect on our health and the health of future generations. What the cabbage can give to us depends upon what we give to it, and it is no less true that the air can only give us what we give to it. This is the interconnectedness to which I speak. Dharma gave me a gift - her life - that I might more easily move to where I am and to honor that gift I find myself incumbent upon giving her, in my life, the gift of passing on her teachings to others.

     We are one with all things and they with us. Therefore it makes sense to honor those things we use, or take from the natural world, as the Native Americans have done. It seems like a reasonable idea all of a sudden, to say “thank you” before we eat the food in front of us, or simply take a moment to be mindful of where it came from and how we are connected to it. Not to a God that gives, but to the process by which we are sustained in this life. Perhaps we are actually all here to be used by one another – plant, animal, and human alike – and all must act and accept, according to that imperative. When the unknown virus devours human life or a natural calamity swallows a whole city in the middle of the night, we will then be the food for life. Perhaps it is only through "skillful means’" and a practice of gratitude that we can find true peace amid this truth.

Alexander Pope and Blaise Pascal: A Comparison

"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan:
The proper study of mankind is man.
Plac’d upon this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise and rudely great.
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic’s side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a God or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer.
Born but to die and reasoning but to err’
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little or too much,
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused or disabused.
Created half to rise and half to fall,
Great lord of all things yet prey to all.
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled,
The glory jest and riddle of the world." --  Alexander Pope                             

     The following is from the writings of Blasé Pascal who died in 1662. It is hard to imagine that Pope did not know what had been written by a Frenchman up to possibly 100 years before. And it is even more exciting to think that they came to these conclusions separately and yet voiced them in a manner suggesting conspiracy. These were taken from a book by Maurice Friedman titled The Worlds Of Existentialism: A Critical Reader. Italics is mine.

Blaise Pascal:
"Whoso takes this survey of himself will be terrified at the thought that he is upheld in the material being, given him by nature, between these two abysses of the infinite and nothing, he will tremble at the sight of these marvels…
For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in regard to the infinite, a whole in regard to nothing, a mean between nothing and the whole; infinitely removed from understanding either extreme. The end of things and their beginnings are invincibly hidden from him in impenetrable secrecy, he is equally incapable of seeing the nothing whence he was taken, and the infinite in which he is engulfed.
What shall he do then, but discern somewhat of the middle of things in an eternal despair of knowing either their beginning or their end…?
Let us know our limits: we are something, but we are not all. What existence we have conceals from us the knowledge of first principles which spring from the nothing, while the pettiness of that existence hides us from the sight of the infinite….
Restricted in every way, this middle state between two extremes is common to all our weaknesses.
Our senses can perceive no extreme. Too much noise deafens us, excess of light blinds us, to great distance or nearness equally interfere with our vision, prolixity or brevity equally obscure a discourse, too much truth overwhelms us…..
In a word, all extremes are for us as though they were not; and we are not, in regard to them: they escape us, or we them.
This is our true state; this is what renders us incapable both of certain knowledge and of absolute ignorance. We sail on a vast expanse, ever uncertain, ever drifting, hurried from one to the other goal. If we think to attach ourselves firmly to any point, it totters and fails us; if we follow, it eludes our grasp, and flees us, vanishing forever. Nothing stays for us. This is our natural condition, yet always the most contrary to our inclination; we burn with desire to find a steadfast place and an ultimate fixed basis whereon we may build a tower to reach the infinite. 
We may not then look for certainty or stability. Our reason is always deceived by changing shows, nothing can fix the finite between the two infinites, which at once enclose and fly from it…..
Were man to begin with the study of himself, he would see how incapable he is of proceeding further……
Man is to himself the most marvelous object in Nature, for he cannot conceive what matter is, still less what is mind, and less than all how a material body should be united to a mind. This is the crown of all his difficulties, yet it is his very being." 

The Misery of Man
"We care nothing for the present. We anticipate the future as too slow in coming, as if we could make it move faster: or we call back the past, to stop its rapid flight. So imprudent are we that we wander through the times in which we have no part, unthinking of that which alone is ours: so frivolous are we that we dream of the days which are not, and pass by without reflection those which alone exist. For the present generally gives us pain; we conceal it from our sight because it afflict us, and if it be pleasant we regret to see it vanish away. We endeavor to sustain the present by the future, and think of arranging things not in our power, for a time at which we have no certainty of arriving.
If we examine our thoughts, we shall find them always occupied with the past or the future. We scarcely think of the present, and if we do so, it is only that we may borrow light from it to direct the future. The present is never our end; the past and the present are our means, the future alone is our end. Thus we never live, but hope to live, and while we always lay ourselves out to be happy, it is inevitable that we can never be so."
Now this last part (Misery of Man) really sounds so much like the Zen I know that it is amazing. It seems to me to support the notion that there is a “truth” within man’s consciousness that ties us all together existentially and clearly speaks to the One-ness we have so much trouble getting our mind around.
I also find this next paragraph a particularly well put description of one aspect of the human condition. And we think we are so evolved…..like Pope said, we are, “the glory, jest, and riddle of the world.”

Of Self-love:

The nature of self-love and of this human “I” is to love self only, and consider self only. But what can it do? It cannot prevent the object it loves from being full of faults and miseries; man would fain be great and sees that he is little, would fain be happy, and sees that he is miserable, would fain be perfect, and sees that he is full of imperfections, would fain to be the object of love and esteem of men, and sees that his faults merit only their aversion and contempt. The embarrassment wherein he finds himself produces in him the most unjust and criminal passion imaginable, for he conceives a mortal hatred against that truth which blames him and convinces him of his faults. Desiring to annihilate it, yet unable to destroy it in its essence, he destroys it as much as he can in his own knowledge, and in that of others; that is to say, he devotes all his care to the concealment of his faults, both from others and from himself, and he can neither bear that others should show them to him, nor that they should see them.

Let's Begin Again

     It seems that being required to purchase a new computer has lured me back to my long deserted blog. I can't explain why exact but so be it! I will try again share my psychic space with all who are bored enough to follow along.
     While perusing previously highlighted portions of Alan Clements book, Instinct For Freedom, I ran across two quotes - one his and the other by Martin Luther King - that were some 20 pages apart but rang my eureka-bell. I have always had a difficult time finding a clear understanding of Dr. Kings statement but when I read both in closer proximity to one another....well let me try to explain.
      Clements wrote, "As the theory goes, freeing the mind of one's primordial ignorance is considered a great act of compassion."  A personal note in the margin said, "Think about why?" And immediately I remembered reading, some minutes earlier, the statement by Martin Luther King. "All persons are tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly....I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." 
     First let's think about the idea of primordial ignorance. I have come to recognize that our most basic ignorance, or simply - our failure - is to readily see that life is never alone. That is, all that we commonly refer to as life is not a group of individual, separate and unique, items that exist unconnected to one another. Life is a living tapestry - or as Dr. King wrote, a "single garment." And as a result the destiny of each, apparently separate, individual (or thread) in that tapestry is affected by every other thread. Each thread, each living organism in that cosmic tapestry is inexplicably connected to every other organism. We each happen to be but one such thread; a biologically dependent, myth-making mammal in a vast universe of living, interconnected, diversity. Each act by any thread in the garment (through what we know as cause and effect) impacts, directly and indirectly, each thread in the garment. And our primordial ignorance is the biochemical constitution that makes seeing this fact not only counter-intuitive but, confusing and very difficult to imagine and accept.
     It is for this reason that freeing the mind of this ignorance is to be considered a great act of compassion. It is an act that requires choice and a determined, intentional effort to pull back the shroud of our own ignorance in order to achieve the compassion that awaits our labor. And if we recognize that we are part of this enormous, living, interconnected process of life and death, and that what we can become is forever intertwined with others - and others with me - like the threads of a vast tapestry of all different colors, shapes, and sizes -- then and only then can I become all that I am able to be; that is the destiny of which he spoke. 
     And it is the very nature of this process that eludes us and imprisons us within the confines of our biological heritage. Our freedom however is not impossible to achieve. Just as many wise men and women have noted, the world is created by each of us within our minds. And the key is the freeing of our minds from the ignorance that plagues us all. It does, as always, begin with me. For I can't change others directly. I can only change myself directly but when I do, there is an indirect affect on all who I interact with, as stated by Dr. King  --"whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly."
     So, I am left with, once again another moment of clarity that will surely slip from my awareness once more, as I continue to struggle to see the mountain that is no longer a mountain and bring it back to my everyday vision of my world and the interrelated structure of reality.

Who am I?

Who am I? Actually the better question is "what" is this "I" that Bob is so attached to?

      Back in 2011 I besieged your mind with an inquiry in order to articulate the process by which the self is born. Today I would like to restate my position in a far more concise fashion. I've been away for some time and perhaps this will jump start a new era (era?) of journaling. That said I give you the latest articulation on "who" or "what" I am.

      “I” am named Bob. And Bob is an impermanent, evolving aggregate, born within a specific sequence of DNA, which includes an experiential history, which is comprised of actions and outcomes, which are  interpreted and reinforced by self-referential dialogue. 

A Dialogue

      The following dialogue was excerpted from an ongoing communication with a friend in Asheville wherein we joust back and forth on any number of topics. For clarity I offer it with my friends comments highlighted and MY REPLYs noted as such.
      I think a major difficulty in accepting that Nirvana is here and now is that if one takes this seriously, one is likely to respond: “Yikes! You mean this is it? There ain't nuthin' else? What a disappointment!” I read someone write that spiritual practice represents a mental sickness and the role of the teacher is to show the student that his/her practice is useless and the only thing keeping the student from enlightenment is the student's very thinking that there is such a thing as enlightenment.
 MY REPLY: I am in 100% agreement that this is a situation that arises quite often. It doesn’t mean that one ceases to practice, but rather that they realize that their grasping after an end result, making it something “out there,” only causes them to miss the experience itself.
      I’m fairly sure I wrote this sometime in the past but my realization about this issue was when I was driving down a long stretch of highway in which there was no street-illumination, and the distance I was traveling consisted of many long, gradual curves. It was late at night and I could see the reflection of city lights rising up from the horizon against the dark sky. At some point I realized that if I maintained my sight on the lights along my circuitous path, I would surely find myself careening off the highway into a tree or at least some remote part of the countryside. That I needed to keep my eye on the road itself in order to safely achieve my goal, became apparent. Luckily this experience was not lost in relation to other parts of my life.
      The manner in which the Master expressed his teaching was extreme and lends itself to rejection, but the truth remains. If I ignore the present and focus on my goal at the expense of the present, moment to moment process, I am likely to forever miss the desired end.
      That's one valid point of view though it sounds a little cynical to me.
      MY REPLY: I don’t think it is cynical at all. It speaks to the fact that if I am so intent on arriving at some pre-ordained state or place, I will miss the process or steps that actually lead me there, as expressed in “to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive and the true success is in the labor.” – Robert L Stevenson.
      The reason this is true in Bob-ism, is that what Nirvana is, is a state of mind - or "be-ing" if you will - a be-ing that is manifested here and now, not there and then. It is one of the beautiful, subtle truths that are pointed to in the seemingly arcane and paradoxical teachings in Zen.
      That Nirvana is here and now: one reads that from time to time. To me it sounds a little like the Christians who say that Heaven is here; we just have to open our eyes.
      MY REPLY: I believe that those two statements are identical even though they are from such dissimilar ideologies. They mean the exact same thing to me.
      Or that all you need to do to be saved is to accept that you're saved.
      MY REPLY:Well, if we are able to see that what we understand as our life arises from our attitudes, and thoughts about it, then it’s ontologically reasonable. If you believe you are saved, since there is no overt proof of such an assertion being possible (a matter of faith), then your believing trumps all.
      They all have the same logic and maybe they're all true.
      MY REPLY: I’m not sure about what you mean by “we all have the same logic?” If that were true we wouldn’t argue with the logic some people use to explain those ideas we determine to be in opposition to our own???
      How can Nirvana be here and now and also not be here and now?
      MY REPLY: If nirvana is not interpreted as a static location outside the mind, but rather a posture, here and now - resulting from the extinction of the root cause of whatever our dis-ease may be (say, grasping-after or non-acceptance) - we will have an opportunity to see clearly the path to liberation in this life.
      My statement implies that the goal, in this case Nirvana or Heaven, is not here for me in this moment since I am being told to do something in order for it to be manifested at some point. And if we remember that there is no tomorrow but rather just Now, then arriving at the place where Nirvana/Heavens reward arises in my life, it too will be Now. So it is achievable in the here and now, and at the same time I do not have it here and now because I am in the process of achieving it. When the object is found, the search ends, and this will always be Now. The way this is understood in Bob-ism is as follows.
      If we are able to understand Nirvana/Heaven as a new way of being-in-the-world, wherein we embrace or absorb the impact of the constant flow of data upon our senses with emotional and intellectual equanimity (the distinguishing characteristic of nirvana), we will be without judgment (attraction or aversion) and our suffering/dissatisfaction will be extinguished (to the limited degree possible for a physical being).
     This equanimity requires us to see deeply into the connection between four very important truths about our existence - Impermanence, Emptiness, No-self, and Dependent-Arising - and how they are manifested in our everyday life. Or in the words of Christmas Humphreys in his book, A Western Approach to Zen, (pg.182), “Zen does not deliver us from the conditions of manifestation; it enables us to deal with them efficiently."
      Nirvana, samsara, enlightenment – all these are illusions created by our dualistic mental processes. They are illusions in the sense that there is no separate, identifiable essence inherent in them (unless one chooses to identify this essence as their referents). They are as “fingers pointing to the moon” – thoughts or ideas that represent something, and in this case, a process; a path out of the woods. “Posture is everything.” - Japanese Zen master, Shunryu Suzuki.
      So I think this explains what seems to be an unacceptable paradox. Nirvana or enlightenment are not places, so in that sense they don’t exist, they are illusory notions. However, at the same time they are achievable postures with which we embrace the ever-changing onslaught of experiences that assail us as we go through our lives in each present moment. In doing so, we find that an emotional and intellectual “middle ground” can be achieved in the Now. And when we reach this middle ground and it becomes our of way of relating to the world as presented to us, we will no longer be thinking, feeling, and acting from the previous perspective. Thus I hear the sages advice to “be the change you want to see in the world, and your world will change.”
      And in order to comment on this difference or change, we will have to step out of the present perspective in order to objectify it. They can now be seen as two separate realms, realities, or whatever term suits one’s way of ordering one’s experiences. But the entire process is achieved in this present lifetime.
      Now this is just the tip of the iceberg, but suffice it to say that it is achieved in the “here and now.” One must not get caught in the trap of thinking that by “here and now,” one should expect to have an instantaneous liberation. The reference to here and now is intended to counter the idea of after-life acquisition and to help us stay focused on this existence, and to work diligently.
      Just as when tomorrow comes it will always be here and now, today - so it is not an “is that all there is” situation as you alluded to earlier. But rather, it is a journey wherein one changes gradually as a result of the effort put forth until one suddenly realizes there are changes that he/she didn’t notice as their practice proceeded. It is just another answer to the previously noted comments by teachers about not focusing on some idea or evaluative understanding of enlightenment or nirvana or heaven, but to just practice with one’s nose firmly entrenched in the present.
      What are we really meaning here? That one “enters” Nirvana if one just drops all one's hang-ups and anxieties?
       MY REPLY: First, the term "enter" is misleading as you may have surmised by what I’ve suggested above. There is no need to consider entering something that is always present. In this case it presents as a “possibility,” if one lives through an appropriate practice.
      And second, if one always thinks in simple terms likes hang-ups and anxieties instead of focusing on the actual work to be done involving a deeper understanding of Impermanence, No-self, Emptiness, and Contingent-Arising as they specifically relate to one’s life - as well as daily experiences wherein we attempt to nurture the ideas of Compassion and Tolerance, and attempt to become more experientially aware of our own Grasping, Aversion, Judging, Anger, and Fear (just a cursory list) - it will all remain rhetorical. To focus on terms like “hang-ups” and “anxieties,” while they are colloquially acceptable, they are also dismissive of the depth and value of what is pointed to with the use of the terms mentioned above.

The Ultimate Parasite

      On one of my daily walks I found a caterpillar furiously trekking toward the other side of the driveway. As most children do, I bent down and used a small stick to alter his journey and before long he had turned completely around and was headed off the driveway into the grass. I continued my daily Medicare stroll, and as is often the case, a thought whispered that I might have saved a life by this little redirection; perhaps to metamorphose into a beautiful butterfly, or become food for another in the cycle of life. And before long, just as if it were a dream, my train of thought switched to human existence and the delusional webs we weave as explanations for life.
      Mankind is the only animal we know of with the ability to imagine a past and a future. This ability has served us well and has great benefit in the present. However, it brings with it a dark side in the form of anxiety, fear, and greed which gives birth to anger, wars, and all forms of myopic behavior. For instance, we have behind us centuries of religious texts that posit man as the “ultimate animal” anointed by god or gods, as the rightful heir to the thrown of the almighty. Few are willing to recognize that we are actually just another parasite here on our "third rock from the sun.”
      I’m not suggesting that this isn’t rational for us. It seems quite logical given the brain we have to work with; the one which is responsible for everything we imagine or experience. It’s miraculous in its own right; but seriously compromised as well. In the words of Alexander Pope we are the animal “created half to rise, and half to fall; great lord of all things, yet prey to all.” And it is my belief that we, as a species are continually “falling” short on using what would seem to be our greatest asset: reason. Century after century we seem unable to look inside our own attitudes, fears, and greed, in order to recognize our true nature; parasites in a world wherein we truly are the “intellectual" lords over all. Yet we seem unable to act in accord with our position.
      There is the concept of Contingent (or Mutual) Arising which informs a real and in my mind, accurate description of existence. Simply stated it posits that all things arise only in conjunction with conditions that precede it. Nothing appears on its own or unconnected. No thing arises from nothing. All of existence is contingent upon conditions that form the ground out of which all things arise. It is a statement of process, not miraculous appearance. It eliminates any rational argument regarding First Cause for those who find the whole issue beyond an ability to conceive of without falling back on anthropomorphic rhetoric.
      So let’s examine the connection between this idea that all things are connected in a “continual web of creation” in which each contingency is further connected to other causes or conditions, and the idea that the human being is a parasitic entity. But first let’s be clear about what I mean by the term parasite. Normally the term brings to mind all sorts of frightening creatures. But I want to let go of these characterizations and ask to what the term really refers. What does the term parasite mean?
      One such definition is an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. And just so we don’t get sidetracked at the beginning, allow me to identify the human being as an organism, and further defined as “a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.” I hope there is no confusion in stating that we are a form of life so composed. I would suggest that as this human organism we:

1) Live on and within the mutually interdependent parts/species of our physical world.

2) That it would be accurate to refer to our physical world as our “host.”

3) And that all the nutrients that sustain human life come from this host.

So as an organism we have met the criteria for being parasites. That is, we exist by and through the very process that defines parasitic activity.
       There is another definition for parasite that I believe is worth noting. It states: a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
       I call attention to the part of this definition which states that after receiving support or advantage they do so without giving any useful or proper return. This is an interesting distinction that can be made concerning the human being and sets us apart from all other forms of life that flourish.
      We tend to believe ourselves to be the “great lord of all things” and in our taking, we have convinced ourselves that we needn’t be part of the symbiotic relationships in life. We take and use until there is depletion, extinction, or destruction; and our minds are so deluded by myth that we believe it our right to do so.
      I think it would behoove us to recognize that life will survive without us. And it occurs to me that it may have to eliminate us in order to do so. The parasite that doesn’t give back to the process that supports it, will be eliminated……that seems to be the real “great lord of all things.”
      Or in the words of Stephen Batchelor, "In dissolving this view through a vision of the world as a dynamic and interrelated whole of which we are an integral part, we are likewise freed to engage with the world afresh.” ---Buddhism Without Beliefs.

A Boy Just Like Me

      It was many years ago and some things seem to change very slowly. I made my way through the parked cars, enjoying the bright afternoon sun. The leaves were beginning to turn dull and fluttered against the crisp blue sky. Stretching the kinks out of my legs, I took a deep breath. My lungs screamed betrayal as the smell of burned cooking fat rode the cool September breeze from the dumpster across the parking lot.
      As I approached the drive-thru lane a young man carefully backed through the glass door and turned in my direction. The remains of a Value-meal box in his right hand, his left shoulder dipped downward toward the whining ball of flesh that he held firmly by the hand.
      “Come on now,” he pleaded, “You’ve got to stand up.”
      The boy’s rebellion reminded me of an outraged chimpanzee. Legs curled up into his stomach, he dangled at the end of his father’s arm. A vanilla complexion now scarlet against his long blonde hair, and with eyes closed in a grimace of wrinkles, he flailed against his father’s grip.
      His father continued in a calm clear voice, “Come on now, stand up like a big boy.”
      As if in a vision, there I was whirling in outrage against life with eyes locked tight against everything around me. Kicking and screaming against the firm hand of an unflinching world. And how I was so often like this little boy, with vision clenched behind a wall of anger, unable to grasp the depth of my sufferings.