HOW TO THINK ABOUT A BIRD

The bird was there on the ground one morning, tucked into the corner of the little alcove garden just outside the bathroom window. The habit of flossing my teeth mindlessly had me staring out of the window and seeing that bird. At first, I thought the little creature (what kind of bird is it?) was just resting, maybe sleeping there. Do birds sleep on the ground? Each time, morning and night (I am a twice a day flosser) I would look out at the bird and find it interesting that it hadn't moved from one day to the next, except for almost imperceptible shifts in the way the visible wing moved, so unlike how we picture birds “on the wing.” It was as if the bird was dead but not dead. It was “not dead” as it lay there moving so slowly, changing position so subtly that only staring at it during a flossing routine would reveal how it had moved. Its head was into the wall but the wing I could see was ever so slowly changing position.

Here it is important to know that I, too, had a self perception of being dead but not dead. I had recently been diagnosed with an aggressive prostate cancer and was awaiting the surgery that was anticipated to be curative. From day to day I found myself relating to the bird in the corner as a being in a state of change, of being perceived in one way by habit and in another way by the pressure of a new realization. As I thought about the bird and me, its life became a metaphor for my own. Of course, faced with such a dramatic diagnosis there was the implication of limited mortality and this came to mind twice a day while flossing my teeth.

The little bird itself opened up for me all the observations and perceptions and metaphors that accumulate for all of us over a lifetime. What is it like to be a bird and how could a dead bird in any way resemble me? Birds in poems and prose and in Nature herself are the creatures that soar and perch and fly in those mysterious and astounding murmurations. This is what a bird “means” to so many of us. We don't picture many birds on the ground and we certainly don't think of them falling to the earth in death by natural means or the victim of an over zealous flight colliding with a window (I am not thinking of birds shot out of the air for human enjoyment). They are meant to be forever in the air and as eternal and free as anything we might imagine. They are meant to be joyous in song and deft in flight. They are so often cited for their songs bringing joy to our hearts and their vivid colors substance to the artist's palette. We see them in groups and flocks and are reminded of what a community (and maybe a family) is.

On the other hand, to complement the joy and freedom we assign to birds, there are birds that don't feed on the seeds we put out for them but feed on those little birds themselves. There are the birds that hoard our trash and valuables alike. There are birds that feed upon the road kill carrion as well the bodies of those in the Buddhist world laid out in the Himalayan skyways to illustrate how our skin and bones recycle for grander purposes, food for great birds hunched just to make us their meal. There are the devious birds that substitute their eggs in a borrowed nest or even eat the eggs of a trusting nesting mother. We make judgments and anthropomorphize bird behavior as if it were similar to our own, yet feeling superior as the end product of some unchanging evolutionary process. There are “good” birds and “bad” ones. But we are always the “good guys.”

When I watched the dead bird over many weeks and in my mind became more and more of a dead bird myself, I began to wonder about mortality and how it affects all living things and beings. I wondered about my own mortality and how my wishes for a green burial would resemble the slow and shifting deterioration of the little bird of my life. I thought more about symbols and metaphors and what birds mean and have meant over the millennia to the poets and oracles and ornithologists. How as young students do we come to know about birds and relate to them? What, then, do different birds “mean”? Can they mean more than one thing at a time? Can they be dead but not dead? Can that be true for us as humans? In the grand system of cosmic meaning, aren't all of us creatures the same in soulful ways? If God notices the fallen sparrow, are we not all of us fallen sparrows in the end?If birds are messengers or prophets, why don't we notice them and heed them?

Psalm 84:3: Even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young—a place near your altar, Lord Almighty, my king and my God. Blessed are those who dwell in your house; they are ever praising you.

Matthew 10: 29-31: His eye is on the sparrow. And I know he watches over me. God cares for all the birds and all the animals that walk this earth. Not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it.

The accretions of time have added meanings to birds as symbols. Some of them are:

Sparrow: God's love and care, humility, love and loyalty, fertility, new beginnings, hope,

productivity, diligence, creativity

Dove: God, Holy Spirit, peace

Goldfinch: Jesus

Cardinal: God's messenger, the spirit of the departed, faith, balance, romance

Crow: intelligence, curiosity, adaptation

Crane: blessings, good luck

Eagle: courage, rebirth, power

Owl: insight, wisdom, death

Swan: light, romance, purity

Nightingale: anticipation, love, secrets

Hummingbird: joy, love, healing

Falcon: longevity, victory, nobility

Bluebird: joy, honesty, harmony

Swallow: safe passage

Starling: spiritual unity, family relationships, community, cooperation, prosperity

(Here I reference Lyanda Lynn Haupt's Mozart's Starling)

As I read over the list it seems to me we assign characteristics to birds that align with elements of the human being, often reaching the level of the highest virtues.

Of course, among the many features we think about when we think about a bird are freedom, perhaps spiritual flight, flocks and community, migrations and navigations, the ecological losses of species, accelerated climate change and the slow pace of evolutionary adaptations, the effects on the natural world of pollution and population density and technological changes including light pollution and giant wind turbines with their disorienting blades.

Do humans find what they need in life through natural forms, imitating or appropriating or exploiting? While we see among birds the life imperative and free-floating ethereal ease, do we not also see them as targets and attempt to dominate them by hunting quotas and trapping? Do birds live only in our imaginations as free spirits? Do we attempt to bring them down to Earth one way or another to fulfill the Biblical prophecy that “man” shall dominate all creatures?

The bird I observed over many days was at once an anachronism in its fallen state but at the same time in a state in which all humans will find themselves at one time or another—impermanent and subject to the forces of natural transformation, decayed and recycled. I think the bird I studied reminded me of the great forces of life that include not only great freedom of flight, of high virtue and of grand color and song, but also great dignity and accommodation to the forces of death. And it is in seeing death in this body of life lying so still that I was brought back to my own sense of still living. It didn't seem complete enough to relate to the freedom and beauty of flight without also seeing how all things change and all living beings will eventually die and how this is how it should be.

Now, when I see a balletic murmuration forming and reforming over the tawny fields of grass on a fall day, I am with them in spirit as they rise and fall just as I was with the fallen bird in spirit. But it was more than an observer and the observed. There was more to the association than science is able to describe. My consciousness is now able to comprehend in a mysterious way flight as spiritual flight.

How to think about a bird is about how to think about myself as capable of free flight but also capable of becoming something else in a natural transformation of cells and atoms. But just as I will become recycling material, I will also retain in some amorphous way the freedom of flight—because I experienced it and the flight of any bird will be the flight and freedom of all beings caught on the wing. It is an arising. And if God notices the fallen sparrow, will he not also notice me in my loneliness, my cancer, my grounding, my death? Will I not rise with the next bird spirit that takes wing from the branches of the tree outside the bathroom window?

Imagination intrudes into these thoughts about birds and mortality and my life. I know only my imagination allows me to experience the flight of birds and to somehow or other identify with them whether they perch, sing, dip and soar, nest in peace and security. If I can project onto birds virtuous traits, then do I do so because I am not able to find them as defining traits of the human species? Are these traits humanized in birds? Or were they originally theirs and for us to borrow, “avianized” as it were?

There is so much about the flying and Earthbound beauty of birds to return us to the great beauty and miracles of this world. What am I to make of the fallen bird? I refer to the metaphor of the fallen bird as an expression of mortality, shattering the iconic bird living in eternal spiritual flight. But if interdependence means anything it means that all living things and beings will at some time perish. It was interdependence that came to mind as I studied the fallen bird outside the window. It was about rising and falling, it was about living and dying, it was change and transformation, it was about body and soul, about light and flight.

There was a great amount of comfort for me as I reflected on how much and how deeply I related to the dead bird. I noticed its death. And, in the noticing, I recalled the Biblical passages that told me about God seeing each little bird in its life and death. And about God caring about the bird and about me. There is nothing more isolating than physical illness and disability. The world contracts down around the pain and suffering that disease brings to all of us. We tend to isolate ourselves as separate beings from those around us as we focus on our ailing minds and bodies. Our pain even separates us from the mental and spiritual lives that might have played such an important and fulfilling part of our lives. It is only natural that this happens as a way for our bodies to heal. I think I was more susceptible to the little fallen bird and what its life and death beheld. This was a way, in some small way, to escape from the burdens of my diagnosis and physical pain. And isn't this what we naturally do when we yearn for healing from physical and mental illness? Do we not crave flight, even spiritual flight?

It was not such a great stretch to incorporate the metaphor of the fallen bird in my thoughts to include, also, my reflections on the meaning of life and death in the person of Jesus. In the story of the life of Jesus there is also falling and rising. There is the spiritual flight as well as the enacting of great virtues on Earth. Jesus was God's bird. Even the image of Jesus on the cross brings to mind the spread of wings before flight.

Play of the imagination allows for a wide variety of associations and allusions. Metaphors abound in the realm of the imagination. Metaphors in this case of the fallen bird were healing for me and helped me reconnect with a fuller life beyond diagnosis and disease and pain. Metaphors of grace and beauty are healing. It is possible that metaphors do, in fact, represent a reality beyond mere association. They may emerge from the principle of interdependence. We may live inside the lives and bodies of creatures considered lower in the hierarchies of taxonomy. The fallen bird was giving up its body to the Earth from which it came. And the same is true for our species. However much we try to push thoughts of mortality from our minds, we, too, will one day give ourselves up to the Earth. For me, realizing this was meaningful and meant an eventual intermingling with a cosmic realm that contains all things and beings that have come before me. This made the plans for a green burial all that more meaningful.

If my life has been motivated in part by a desire to serve others, then what could represent such service more than giving my cells and atoms back to the Earth for recycling? Many of us think that end-of-life “strategies” are complete when we have signed papers and made arrangements for distribution of property. But the real contribution to the world in which we live is to lay ourselves down in the Earth once we have fallen from our human flights and to give ourselves over to the wisdom of the Great Mother from whom all of us have come. And for us to release our spirits, as if a bird in flight, to the eternal spiritual beyond.

Now, when I see even the smallest murmuration, I am held in a cosmos of such vast dimensions and I know that when I fall I will be as the fallen bird outside the bathroom window—noticed and released and embraced.
 

HOW TO THINK ABOUT ANYTHING

If the effort in writing and, thus, thinking are to make sense of a complex world, then it seems valuable to develop a way to think about anything that occurs in all of the complexity. It also seems valuable (but maybe a bit more ambitious) to have a simplified model from which to work. It seems to me that there are many mental models proposed by folks who are intent on what I am trying to do and that is to make simple work of something that is innately hard. It is hard to put pieces of a puzzle together if they are scattered all about and then to see what meaning there is to the puzzle itself. It is in the order of things these days to comment on how dizzying the pace of life has become, how distracted we are in our daily lives, how we are challenged to make connections when we are so driven. I think all of these things are true but they don't obviate the opportunity to make some sense of the puzzle.

I begin my own puzzle-making by setting the intention to be curious. Curiosity is really all about inquiry, asking questions to frame out the context and relationships of what it is that puzzles. Or it may be a situation that is the basic point of interest. No matter what the context is, it involves human behavior and human responses, for it is humans caught up in the tangle of uncertainty. I have asked myself what mental model would fit the need I have to solve the puzzles that occupy me? What simple formulation is available to assist me? This leads me to a very familiar source, the Buddha.

The Buddha taught many things about existential life but the most helpful for me are his Four Noble Truths and where they lead. The Four Truths state that: There is suffering. There are causes of suffering. There is a method to deal with the suffering. And the method is the Eightfold Path. This seems very simple but, as with many simple observations, within it lie all the considerations one might make of human behavior. He is, after all, addressing his monks and nuns in the context of their lives and how they might address the needs of the people they will be serving. Over the millennia he continues to address the faithful Buddhists but also offers his teaching to anyone willing to listen and absorb it.

His observation about suffering is a universal given. In these days we pair suffering with the pain that precedes it. So often we do not get beyond the pains of our lives and get stuck in a fixed mindset. We are beset with the pain and cannot move beyond it or the suffering we bring to it. Pain is also a universal given for human beings. Pain will come into everyone's life, be it physical, mental/emotional, or spiritual. There will be suffering as we layer onto the pain our complicated emotional responses within the context of our individual lives. The Buddha suggested a few of the causes of our suffering that include greed, anger, and delusion. But one could make a very long list of those human behavioral characteristics that cause suffering, including those that on their face appear to be desirable reactions. There is a Buddhist teaching that there can be two arrows afflicting us in any event of trauma. The first arrow is the pain of the experience. The second arrow is the suffering we concoct because of the pain. The first arrow is a condition of human existence. The second arrow is optional. We get to choose how to experience our pain and can decide not to take the second arrow, one we inflict on ourselves.

The Eightfold Path has just a few steps on it, each one connected to all the others so that someone traveling can step forward or back no matter which step he takes. They are in an order that begins to make sense and the order begins with Right View. Here I want to suggest that what has traditionally been a reference to “right” is not really carving out the duality of right and wrong. I don't think the Buddha would have been so dogmatic. What makes sense to me is to use the word “appropriate,” as that references context and relationships, just the way I think it helps to discern the pieces of any puzzle.

It is helpful to use an example that is right at hand today. We are in the middle of a string of very hot weather with temperatures nearing 100 degrees on some days. What has been called climate change is really climate disruption and its true nature is a complicated puzzle for scientists to unravel and interpret. Unfortunately, it has become a political football that has ideological and economic implications for some people and especially the people in power who control legislation and the financial means to work on climate disruption mitigation (if that is still possible). What it means to me is that the heat causes pain and suffering. In times past, I have been greatly affected by heat. It has never been a situation in which recreation is possible. The pain of the heat has stimulated reactions of frustration and even anger that it had to occur in the first place. It has resulted in thinking about investing in air conditioning for this old farmhouse or about where in the country one might move to escape the heat of summer. Each day that heats up now brings the suffering of mental torpor and physical sloth. When this happens, I feel guilty for having wasted precious time and I am more aware as I age how time is shortening and how I want to insert into time various projects that seem important to me, like this blog post. But this thinking has me bypassing the first step in the Eightfold Path that could give me a different perspective, a perspective that in the long run will lead to and support a growth mindset, the opposite of a fixed one that has me wallowing in suffering.

What is an appropriate view of heat and climate disruption? I think such a view eliminates all the emotional reactions that lead to suffering in the context of the heat and natural processes. It seems clear that human activity and ongoing choices are bringing us to this global environment that has disrupted the natural processes of the jet stream and also the magnificent and little understood oceanic tides. This is an appropriate view of the context and relationships of what we experience as a hotter Earth. What this means to me is that, instead of reacting against the heat by adding to the problem yet one more home appliance with energy-sucking technology in the form of air conditioning, it is more important to think about ways in which I can learn to live with the heat and, perhaps, learn to condition my body to adapt to it. So, the suffering is gone and in its place is an intention to work within the context of weather patterns to see my own place in the natural world as someone who can adapt rather than as a victim of forces out of my control. It may be that climate disruption is now beyond human abilities to alter its path, but that isn't clear to me yet. What I do know is that climate disruption and this string of very hot days is part of my present context of living and I can choose to willingly participate in adapting to it and not railing and ranting about how little is being done to “fix” it.

It sounds naive, and it is, to say that I now sit in front of a fan that uses far less energy than air conditioning would and, while I still sweat and dial down my physical pace, I hydrate better and do not feel victimized by the heat. It is summer and if summers in the future are to be more like this one, then it seems prudent to learn better ways of adapting to them. If nothing else, it is a bit liberating to be able to see a previous pain with its suffering in a new light and to feel that I still belong on this Earth with its own patterns and changing responses to environmental forces and pressures. I will not be able to fix global climate disruption but I can contribute to its mitigation and at the same time alter my own perception of how humans can respond to it without pain and suffering.

Having said that, I believe there is another way to interpret the Buddha's Four Noble Truths. He does note that our lives are universally afflicted with pain and suffering. He assumes that all pains will be accompanied by suffering and so offers his Eightfold Path as a methodology for relief. But my questions are: What if we really accept the idea that the suffering is optional? What if the universality of painful events is coupled with joy? In a cross-spiritual reference, I am thinking about the life of Saint Francis and how his life might offer a different way to view the common human existential condition (and maybe this is an “appropriate view,” in the Buddha's formulation). Saint Francis lived a life of radical love that was simple and pure. The physical pains he experienced were not accompanied by suffering, inasmuch as it blocked a more expansive expression of his love. The love he aspired to was his interpretation of the love he was given by the God who animated his life. When he experienced the worldly pains of physical and emotional traumas, he returned love. His greatest joy was in being able to bless the perpetrators for bringing him back to the path of pure love, the love that he felt was channeled through him. He did not think of himself as special or chosen or powerful because of this relationship, but tried ever harder to include the most cruel and evil as well as the most displaced and marginalized and oppressed humans in his universe of love, for he believed that all things and beings were creations of God and so embodied God's flame of life and love.

So, I think it is possible to re-do the Buddha's initial formulation and replace suffering with the joy that Saint Francis offers as an expression of pure, simple, and radical love.

I think over time thoughtful human beings have dealt with pain and suffering in millions of ways, perhaps billions of ways. Because it is a universal state of being, they come to all of us in one form or another. I am curious to learn how individuals whose lives can be publicly accessed have defined the context and relationships that have led to a growth mindset. I am thinking of poets and those I call “notables” in my painting sketch project. I am eager to see what I can learn from their unique perspectives and how they spent their lives in “appropriate livelihood,” another of the eight steps on the Path.

So, my intention is to highlight those individuals who illustrate how to think about the world in which they live/d and to see where that led them. In a way, it is to see how they might have managed pain and suffering as a path to personal growth. I think this is what intrigues me about my own life and think it must also be true for so many others. The present times are an incubator for how a growth mindset is possible when so many puzzles lie before us and we find ourselves confused and tangled in fact, fiction, technological changes, social disconnections, distractions, temptations, and exhaustion. The Buddha continues to offer a methodology for tackling the pain and suffering that weigh on all of us one way or another. In the back of my mind I have the intention of offering these little essays to children in my grandchildren's cohort when they are faced with the conundrums of discernment and their personal agency in a world that is continually changing and challenging. The stories to be told about the Buddha and by the Buddha are intergenerational gems that can be treasured as a resource for engaging in a turbulent and sometimes fearful (but always joyful) world.

 

 

THE METAPHYSICS OF GANDHI

The book by Ved Mehta, Mahatma Gandhi and His Apostles, was written at a time when some of Gandhi's apostles were still alive and able to tell their stories about relationships with Gandhi. The book is more down to earth than many I have read over the years, not all complementary. This book looks at Gandhi's life without psychologizing or analyzing or judging it. It is refreshing from that point of view. I suppose I was expecting more mythologizing. Instead, it is a book about the granularity and contradictions of his life and what his legacy was for those who followed him.

I am looking at Gandhi's life through Mehta's eyes as well as the Zen lens I apply to many of my own observations. Mehta offers details that allow the reader to see Gandhi's life and draw conclusions from an individual perspective. I have done that and I have tried to read the details and read between the lines as well as subjecting them to a brighter light. I know from my own experience that I am reading this book now differently than I would have several decades ago when I was in a different place in my life and needing different things from my reading and especially needing different things from the biographies of icons I sought out. I am also aware that I am reading books now with a background of exposure to a changed social and historical world inhabited by figures that have changed my mind about human behavior (I am thinking here primarily of Donald Trump and other authoritarian figures of the mid to late 20^th century). What I have observed of these changes and the effects on large swaths of the population continues to baffle me and lead me on to sources that might explain them. I have grappled with the details that seem so present but, at the same time, attempting to establish a way to think about them (rather than being told what to think).

More and more as I age, I am intent on drawing insights from this changed world of ours, a world that continues to change (as it has throughout history and evolution) and also to cultivate curiosity about those changes. I have found that it is useful to have some intellectual infrastructure to work with in order to frame and evaluate change. It has become more important for me to examine assumptions more closely—those of others and my own. It is important to know when myths and reality are in opposition and to discern a sharper truth. I have tried to do this with Gandhi's biography and now find that some of the myths I had once subscribed to are myths that existed within the contexts of Gandhi's life and of his apostolic circle but that no longer fit into a narrative that has emerged for all of us in a post-pandemic era and in a world where authoritarianism is on the rise across the globe.

Gandhi has always been a fascinating figure for me because of the image of him built around the ideas of sacrifice, simplicity, discipline, and a revolutionary approach to social activism. His ethics were admirable and worth imitating for a younger me. Perhaps I am more jaded now and less easily subject to popular formulations of celebrity. Perhaps I am more skeptical of assertions made by others and also more curious about exploring my own sources of information. In any case, how to think about Gandhi and his legacy is a metaphysical exploration, in part, using a Zen lens to contrast not only Mehta's descriptions of Gandhi's life but also those of his apostles decades after his death—and to use the Zen lens of my perspective to explore my sense of his life within the context of the 21^st century. Of course, so much has changed since the 1940s but certain aspects of human behavior and motivations are universally timeless and are the subject of the Buddha's teachings over several thousand years ago, for example. Contemporary psychology and neuroscience are more sophisticated in their approaches but the basic experimental subject, the human species, remains an open source of information and continuing mystery.

I want to isolate some ideas and impressions I derived from Mehta's book and examine them, realizing that the story of Gandhi's life is a seamless narrative over time, as is the life of each one of us. But there are some threads in the fabric that interested me. The first one is that of his early life when he was trying to find his path in the Indian caste system, the British colonialization of India, his family dynamics, and the Hindu religion. At one point or another he rebelled against all of them and how he managed psychological balance is an interesting sketch.

Gandhi's early life was a restless one. He was not altogether committed to an educational experience, save what it could contribute to earning a living. He moved in and out of India and finally went to South Africa where he got involved in local politics by fits and starts. Over his early life he experimented with breaking Hindu taboos against eating meat and extramarital relationships. At one point he was tending to his dying father but left him to have intercourse with his pregnant wife, another Hindu prohibition. While all of that was going on in the bedroom, his father died and this event, evidence of his uncontrolled lust and abandonment of his father, weighed heavily on him for the rest of his life and helped demarcate how he thought of lust/celibacy and the guilt and shame that can accompany abandonment. What resulted, for him, was to embed personal hygiene and mutual dependence as concepts in his ethic and to insist on them for all of his followers. Interestingly, so heavy was the temptation to waver from swearing off sexual activity that to the end of his life he had young women, clothed and unclothed, sleep with him, a version of self-flagellation I suppose. All the women who did this for him claimed that the gesture was one of a celibate nature. Gandhi used women in all phases of his life. The word “used” is carefully chosen, as he was consciously oppressive in his relationship with his wife, Kasturbai. He used her to procreate and recreate and opposed any educational opportunities for her, even though she sought them.

This brings up another of Gandhi's contradictions and that is his insistence that his followers remain dutifully attentive to native crafts (spinning and weaving) at the expense of furthering any efforts to improve educational opportunities for them. Gandhi said this was the way of simplicity but it seemed to me more a symbol of the simple life than it was in actuality. He was said to spin every day but only as a example to his followers of what he expected of them. His emphasis on bodily hygiene included almost daily enemas to eliminate toxins but this was an extension of his dedication to naturopathy and the idea that cleansing the mind and body of pollutants was enough to ward off illnesses and diseases. He eschewed personal privacy and expected his followers to share their most intimate moments with others without embarrassment or withholding. So, his spirituality was directed to a daily routine of cleansing and detoxifying. He had an aversion to medical science and technology in general. Outdoor latrines were good enough for him and he imagined they were good enough for everyone.

What strikes me about all of this is how Gandhi's compulsions and repressions found expression in his dogmatic teachings and expectations for people around him. There is no question in my mind that he accepted his role as a guru to his people and formulated a dogma for them to follow. Thousands and thousands did follow him. But my impression of dogma is that it leads to rigid rules of behavior and those rules can sometimes become a prison for those following them. I think I saw that in the last portion of Mehta's book in which he interviewed a few of the “apostles” who survived Gandhi. Some of them were now older women and men who had participated as willing subjects for his experiments with celibacy, called brahmacharya, and with truth, called ahimsa. The men had become close associates of Gandhi in the political struggle for Indian independence but they, too, had become stuck in what their roles had been decades before and remained loyal to the symbol of Gandhi. Gandhi, in the last years of his life, was not able to persuade as easily the thousands that had followed him without reservation. The forces of history were much larger than Gandhi's movement and eventually swamped it as the British left the scene of a former colony and its dangerous partition into two states in conflict (India as Hindu and Pakistan as Muslim). As his stature waned in the public realm, the vacuum was filled with others who had agendas and plans driven by their own egos, often conflicting with Gandhi's experiments and sometimes with active dissension resulting in personal animus or outright violence.

As Gandhi's influence increased, he embraced the power that it laid on him. It is said that all power is about coercion. Gandhi's power as head of a patriarchal household also involved coercion, as his relationship with his wife showed. It also applied to his relationships with his children whom he coerced to follow his path. One son rebelled and was later separated from his father only to become wanton and addicted and lost. Gandhi's power in the public sphere was also coercive, as his relationships with his followers resulted in dogmatic teachings and expectations and behavior. He insisted that native simple arts replace education as a lifetime commitment, thus embedding in society ignorance and diminished initiative and, ultimately, left them encased in caste and poverty. Those closest to him were expected to follow his dogma and were purposely expelled when they resisted.

Brahmacharya (celibacy), ahimsa (truth and non-violence), and satyagraha (passive resistance) were the three pillars of his dogma. All three of them were designed to lift his followers out of ignorance and poverty and to gain self-determination in the face of British rule and its oppressive laws. They were lofty goals and tactics that only symbolically served to unite the people while the forces of history were pushing in Gandhi's favor. However, it seems to me that they didn't change the hearts and minds of so many because they carried within them so many contradictions, not the least of which was an unrealistic idea about how human beings behave. Gandhi's agenda based on the context of his own life was not one that could sustain itself over time. Passive resistance (fastings, the salt march to the sea, sit-ins leading to imprisonment), for instance, was a social activist tactic that served by way of calling attention to restrictive laws but not as a tactic to bring greater advantages to many thousands. The needs of those thousands remained during Gandhi's life and persisted after his assassination and persist even to this day, despite global economic advances.

It is no surprise to me that the ego of a guru or any other celebrity with power can result in coercion and reactive repression. The context of a guru's life differs from those of followers even though followers adopt dogmatic agendas laid on them. His compulsions and needs were not identical to those of his followers. It is this aspect of human behavior that still baffles me. I can't understand how intentions for good (or evil) can result in herd behavior at the expense of rational thought or compassionate action or personal agency. There seems to be some basic need to belong to a cause, even if the cause is only cosmetically altruistic. It seems to me that attention to dogmatic rhetoric and behavior would reveal inconsistencies and contradictions and be rejected to avoid the imprisonment that authoritarianism necessarily incorporates within its structures. Gandhi used his own version of coercion with the British authorities in a physical way but also as psychological coercive tactics with his followers. Throughout his active adulthood he pandered to the British, seemingly based on his exposure to what he gained from his educational experiences in England as well as his early flirtation with British styles and culture. This was another of his contradictions but it shows how it might have weakened his satyagraha campaigns in the eyes of his own Indian colleagues. Of course, the presence of contradictions imply inconsistencies and all of us are subject to them in our own lives. It is how they are defined and dealt with that matter. To have expectations for others that we don't adhere to ourselves can become the fodder for resentment and rebellion. Gandhi was assassinated by a man who felt Gandhi was not true enough to his Hindu faith. His wife rebelled and some of his children and close followers rebelled. But millions did not and it is those whose devotion to Gandhi baffles me. Gandhi's satyagraha movement was fashioned in his own image and that was his allure and also his limitation. There are always more contradictions to explore.

Now in these days of rising authoritarian figures around the world (including in India with Narendra Modi) it is worth exploring what relevance all of this has for me. I think what Gandhi represents for me is the idealized vision he presented to the world that doesn't take into account his contradictions and inconsistencies and faults. This is what appealed to me in my younger adulthood when I might have been looking for an icon to guide me through personal difficulties and a world of social tumult (Civil Rights, the Vietnam War, always identity challenges related to the wider world). I think this attraction to a guru always overlooks what might very well be transparently obvious but rejected in need of the icon figure for one reason or another.

Today we have a situation in America in which Trump, possessed of an oversized and dangerous ego, has a grip on the consciousness of millions of citizens—again, to my bafflement. But I suppose they adhere to him in the same way I have held onto the icon persona of Gandhi over the years. Maybe it is the way Gandhiism has been shaped by his followers, just as how Trumpism has been shaped by his. I do not and have never viewed Trump as an icon of ideal vision. But to what extent was Gandhi's vision true? Again, I think it matters what the contexts and relationships are that we examine. In some ways, an authoritarian figure infantilizes his followers and serves as a patriarchal symbol of truth and authority, expecting obedience and commitment. It is this way in families and in the wider social sphere of politics and economics and wherever celebrity spills over into the public consciousness. It is how cults are formed. Strong personalities can attract attention and the ego makes its own path.

It is one thing for an iconic figure to teach and present dogma, but another to exhibit real ownership of those teachings. It is one thing for an authoritarian figure to present one face to the crowds and another thing to use a different mask in his/her own life. Eventually the disconnect from the reality of life shows up and gurus lose their luster—and sometimes their lives and sometimes their freedom.

All of this raises the question for me about whether I am true to the expectations I have for other people and how I judge them, all the while refraining from examining my own motivations. It is humbling to see in myself some of the same tendencies I associate with and brand others. What I looked for in Gandhi is probably not too far from what Trump's followers see in him. I think it is true that all of us have needs to belong, to overcome the loneliness of disconnected relationships and losses, to follow someone who promises a different, if not a new, life of advantage as defined by a dogmatic vision. It is not easy at times to discern contradictions and inconsistencies in our guru figures and perhaps we don't want to see them after all. Perhaps we in our basic needs of belonging and identity can blind us and bind us to figures that don't care about us. How do we find this out? How do we go about building a stronger personal infrastructure of self-trust, of right and wrong, of interdependence, altruism, self- discipline, of truth and goodness, of bodily health, of spiritual “muscle,” and compassion? How do we transcend the grittiness of this worldly existence to experience the metaphysical perspective and equanimity?

The metaphysics of Gandhi involves broadening out the context of his life and what we know about it. It is seeing in his life, in all its various contexts and relationships, forces and vectors that are at play in our own lives and to realize that contradictions and inconsistencies are a part of every life and the passage of time shapes them and us. I think metaphysics has to do with exploration, discernment, and non-judging and to see in the granularity of life its capacity to transcend even the most obvious flaws. Perhaps it is because of and not in spite of them that we are able to appreciate metaphysical energy.

The metaphysics of Gandhi also include ideas about how one approaches a life from the ground level up. It is about using the details and granularity of daily toil as steps on a path that might lead to liberation. I can imagine that this was a difficult task for Gandhi in his satyagraha work, recruiting enough people to help him in what he considered a grand struggle, a struggle that often consigned his followers to actions of sacrifice and sometimes imprisonment. If I look at this task more closely and with a more compassionate eye, then I see how he was able to use his own contradictions and inconsistencies as the only true platform available to him to enlist the energies of his followers. It does seem to me now that his efforts were not contributions to his ego as much as they were driven by it with a higher purpose in mind. He wanted autonomy for his people and felt that individual identity and preferences needed to take a back seat to the common needs of a society bound by colonial oppression, effects of which were known to all people considered subjects of colonial occupation.

I think Gandhi's contradictions and inconsistencies are what have held him in my life for so many decades. At times I have been too quick to judge and to see his lifeways as calculating and negative, even harmful, as the initial part of this piece indicates. But when I put aside the noise of current media tones that seem to resound so loudly, I find room for using the Zen lens optics. Seeing contradictions and inconsistencies in his life and knowing of my own, I admire what he was able to do. He has been idolized and criticized at different times not only in his lifetime but also in the decades since his death. I don't think he is at the center of media attention today, in times that could use his life and message to organize and inspire social changes.

If I consider the rise of authoritarianism in societies across the globe, I see where a stubborn and humble approach, that of Gandhi, could strike a chord of commonality. His satyagraha tactics could be studied for what they offer in America, now so heavily armed and subject to violent crimes, mass murders on a daily basis. Gandhi was not a Zen Buddhist but his movement had elements shared with Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists alike. These elements derive from knowing the human behavior of others by understanding one's own behavior. It seems to me that progress toward commonly shared social change requires nothing less than patience and persistent effort to unite people rather than to divide them.

I understand how we have come to know the situation in America today as a deeply divided nation along fault lines that have existed for centuries and now form dogmas that drive people apart and cause them to adhere to superficial ideas about what a shared society should look like. The idea of sharing space with people with whom you disagree is uncommon today in the world of politics. The idea of a shared common public space begins with nascent concepts of inclusion, human dignity, contradictions and inconsistencies that can be shaped to serve as well as to reconstruct what we might agree on as beneficial or all citizens. I think Gandhi had these concepts in mind with his satyagraha movement and how he was able to capture the imagination of so many millions of people.

I no longer wish for a knight on a white horse to come from lands of myth to save us from ourselves. I now believe what saving is to be done begins in the soil of the Earth from which all of us derive our lives. It involves salt and devotion and walking barefoot miles to the sea. It involves attention to bodily hygiene and emptying chamber pots every day. It is making simple choices in a complicated world all too readily willing to defend prestige, power, profit, and pleasure. In fact, we need to beware the self-proclaimed knights that sit top white steeds. They will not save us from ourselves. We will be saved by making common cause in the service of those whose lives are full of contradictions and inconsistencies but also full of potential energy for discovering truth, goodness, and beauty. Gandhi's metaphysics are as simple and complicated as that.

The picture of Gandhi's life would not be complete without a rounded out sketch of the metaphysics that includes foibles, sorrows, and flaws (maybe all the more obvious to us in retrospect than to him in his own life, as it is with many of us) as well as what brought him satisfaction and joy. This is the story of everyone's life at its core. We are often strangers to ourselves when we are often obvious to others. Beginning to practice how to think about our inner lives and the shell of life around us will lead us naturally to what to think of it all.

It is appropriate to explore what metaphysics means to me. In essence, it is about context and relationships with a backdrop of functional form. It is impermanence and change set against a formulation of not “anything goes,” but of “what is it?” it is an appreciation of sets and tableaux that are produced and being replaced. It is about streaming. It is about all of that in my life and appreciating it in the lives of others. To that extent, it is about imagining a space for others' lives, just as I imagine a space of my own in the context of change and the relationships that always accompany it. It is about seeing contexts anew and watching them change through a Zen lens that is distanced from both the phenomenal (the world of beings and things) and the noumenal (the realm of spirit and spirituality) but originating from them.

Metaphysics is not one thing, fixed and rigid. It is a streaming process without rules. It is, for me, a way to understand more deeply the contexts and relationships that constitute what we perceive as reality. Because reality is difficult to apprehend, it calls forth the use of metaphors to bind it to what we actually experience in our daily lives. The metaphors are, in a way, translations of reality and can help others participate in conversations about it using their own experiences as a basis for relationships.

I was reminded that one of the Zen precepts is not to criticize or find fault with others and so I was brought up short thinking that I had done Gandhi a disservice in finding such fault with the events of his life and surmising what it was that he was thinking and feeling and then attaching a judgment to them. But when I surveyed the whole of my attempts to understand him and to formulate what I have called his metaphysics, I see that I have done what I intended and that is to work up from the granular details of his life to a more overarching concept of what his life meant to me. In other words, the metaphysical approach that this blog piece represents is one of how to think about him rather than what to think of his ideas and behavior and, yes, his successes and failures. I persist in making this distinction because it emphasizes the importance of supporting the concepts of impermanence, not knowing, bearing witness without judging. Focusing on the streaming of contexts and relationships involves a good bit of humility on my part and makes me more aware of how one person lives is not like that of any other person. Criticizing and judging separate me from the other and reify my truth over someone else's. But how we see the truth of anything is part of the streaming flow of life and that always means change and motion and surprising twists and turns that don't always signify linearity or consistency. I am left appreciating the contradictions and inconsistencies of Gandhi's life and work and stand in awe that he was able to accomplish what he did.

This has been a long essay on Gandhi and his life. He and his memory have emerged at different times of my life, attesting to the power of his historical presence. I could not be a Gandhi even with similar intentions to address the fear, anxieties, hate, and violence that now undermine this culture's sense of safety and peace. Hoping that one day we might once again revive his desire for a purer concept of bodily health, a pursuit of truth and nonviolence, and passive resistance leading to social reforms that benefit all people, understanding more about his life and its deeper meanings is useful. It has been useful for me to explore not only his life's trajectory, but also to understand better my own response to it and my own relationship to a changing world in the 21^st century.

 

THE METAPHYSICS OF DEMENTIA

This blog piece is difficult because the subject of dementia is so personal and so vast. Those are only several reasons why one might defer writing about them. But it is because of those reasons that the blog piece seems compelling and necessary. It is a piece that I couldn't avoid writing but that could be interpreted as whining self-service. That is not my intention. I have thought about not publishing it but then wanted to have it available for someone who might be facing something similar and is equally confused about its meaning. Perhaps it could be of some help. Everything about dementia in here is based on my own experience and so my experience might be very different from that of someone else caring for a loved one with some form of dementia, of which there are many causes and conditions. And it must also be said that the mapping of my experiences with someone else's dementia might, at some future time, be the mapping of my own. Knowing how to segment off pieces of the experience is a challenge but it seems to me that the best way is to consider dementia from the inside as well as the outside of the phenomenon.

Trying to look inside dementia from the standpoint of the patient suffering with it is like trying to get some hold on what happens after we die. There is no available language that can be called up to describe the state and no one able to testify. Without language the experience can't be shared and all the observer can do is notice how another person is changing and attempt to translate that into the language we do have at our disposal to describe a mysterious state of mind, body, and soul. I am aware that there are numerous causes of dementia and that what I am working with here is Alzheimer's disease but using the larger category of dementia as a final common pathway of experience, a condition of the brain/mind that is chanelled through common neurologic pathways. This piece is not an attempt to describe what neuroscience has offered us as evidence of the changes in dementia or to highlight the first descriptions of the condition by Alois Alzheimer (1864-1915). This is a piece about fitting dementia into a larger space of understanding from a personal perspective and from accumulated daily experiences.

I notice a tendency here of distancing myself from “the patient” as a way of describing my experience but in truth it has not been that easy living the experience with someone with dementia. In this case, my wife, M, is the patient. It is because we have been married for fifty years that trying to separate myself from her life and experiences is nearly impossible. We are bound together in so many obvious and also subtle ways, as two people become over so long a period of time. Still, it is the distancing that has carried me over the shoals of frustration and sadness to see her changed world in a different way. I am not sure that distancing is a healthy approach, as it creates separation. However, without it there is no way to discern the details of the two lives involved and to preserve the obvious separation of two different worlds in a way that supports both of them as healthfully as possible. It has been most difficult to pull myself away from the idea (and assumption) that we grew together as a single unit over so long a period of time. It was a pulling away from the myth of romantic absorption that brought me to a state of existential despair. I had invested heavily over the years in the idea that we were a fusion of selves, that different as we were we “completed” each other. Looking back on such an assumption, I see that this was a disservice to her and to me in that I never saw us as separate beings with different wants and needs. This is hard to write because our relationship evolved in this way over many years and those years might have been more valuable if I had freed M from my own constraints. Whatever was laid down in her psyche and that now surfaces without filters must be an element in how she is processing her world. With time, perhaps, I will understand more fully the entanglement of the lives of two people in a complex relationship. What follows, then, is an attempt to describe my experience with as little clinical coldness as possible and to reflect along the way on how I was able to eventually understand M more deeply and to accept the changes in her without being with her inside her world.

What is possible to notice in the patient with dementia is an evolution of expressions that is manifested in the middle to late progress of the condition. It has been impossible for me to locate the beginning of the process as I think back on when it might have begun its slow walk. It is not uncommon as one ages to have situations and periods in which there is forgetfulness and to wonder about dementia but still be able to move ahead with the routines and activities of daily life, one's usual life. This includes quirks and habits all of us have as well as memories and interactions with one another and the world around us. We are who we are, all built up over a lifetime of experiences. It is these things that are laid down into the bedrock of who we are and give us a foundation for identity. This is what the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) refers to as the world of phenomena. As time goes along, it is these parts of us that are exposed when the veneer of adaptation and all its filters and social niceties is peeled back in dementia. It seems there is always something of who we are and who we have been that emerges to carry us and act for us. Again Schopenhauer uses the term “will” to designate a force or energy that is life, not the source of life but life itself that is manifested in every aspect of the cosmos but which is not accessible to us as something that can be separated or analyzed. It is life or the life impulse. So it seems with the patient with dementia. In very general terms, as described by Iain McGilchrist (b. 1953) in his book The Matter with Things, this represents an emerging dominance of left brain hemisphere functions such as analysis, organization, planning, language and others that represent a static and fixed approach to experience (maybe the place where the ego is located). This is contrasted with the right hemisphere in which there is located facility with metaphors, art, imagination, creativity in general, curiosity, a relationship with another, an expression of affection, and a sense of the sacred, among others. Because of the dysfunction of disease (stroke, trauma) or inhibition of the right hemisphere by the left hemisphere, the resultant effect is what one can notice in a patient with dementia. In other words, the left hemisphere functions seem to predominate with all of its organizational and structural parameters.

What I also notice over time is a simplification of word choices and language in general. Conversations have become simpler and silences more prevalent. There has been a loss of eye contact, of appetite at times, of body weight (associated with a phobia or fixed idea about gaining too much weight when all the evidence points to serious weight loss), loss of personally directed intimacy and affection. The range of expressions is narrowed and there has been a loss of personalization. In the latter, I no longer seem to be a unique someone to her, a husband or confidant, and what I do around the house is just what someone contracted to do the work would do. There are other manifestations of loss almost every day and it is a challenge to keep up with them with the intent of making the environment safe and comfortable. Her personal responses are often argumentative or critical and are expressions of some lack of trust with resultant resentment and anger. Once again, I think these responses are emanating from a place deep inside her psyche based on a lifetime of similar responses. It has taken me a long time to understand how all of these pieces fit together to explain what I observe daily because so many of the realizations have been accompanied with emotional turmoil on my part. Having fixed ideas about order around the house or shopping lists or media news stories become redundant certainties. Changing these ideas with reminders or rational conversation is not possible.

What the above descriptions document are the very sources of the turmoil I experienced as the dimensions of dementia unfolded. In general, I had made many assumptions over the years that covered all aspects of our relationship and those were placed squarely in front of me as I stumbled through a growing realization of what was happening. At first, it never crossed my mind that what was occurring was a process of loss of cognitive function. I personalized acts and events as if our relationship was what it had been over the fifty years of our marriage. When I experienced depersonalization in her eyes I was thrown into an existential crisis, not understanding who I had become to her and who I actually was. I think this is probably my own singular experience and I can't speak for anyone else working with a loved one's dementia. And I am guessing that experiencing dementia in an aging parent or sibling might be different based on different life contexts and relationships from that of a spouse. My life has been constructed from the bricks that society and culture have provided for me. I built up an inner life that was based on those bricks. Some of the bricks also came from assumptions I had made about our relationship over the time of our marriage that turned out to be unstable. What happened with my crisis was that I felt my heart breaking for the two of us and what I thought we had together as well as a shattering of the pieces of my identity. This was the beginning of my “dark night of the soul,” as described by St. John of the Cross. In part, my identity had depended on the long-term relationship with a spouse as well as other relationships (with children, for instance) and from the cues absorbed from social structures (relationships with my profession and hospital staff and patients I treated) that included whatever a changing world delivered to my consciousness. How the pieces were gathered back is a later part of this story.

What has helped me in the process of reconstruction has been a reliance on metaphors and what they have revealed about what I know and don't know about disease/dementia. One of my guides along this path has been Susan Sontag (1933-2004) and her book Illness as Metaphor. In it she describes the many ways metaphors of illness have shaped our thinking about disease in general (even though her focus was on cancer and tuberculosis, fertile diseases for metaphorical assignments). I want to highlight some of them as a way of attesting to my own thinking about disease and what repercussions they have had in my personal experience with dementia. It is clear to me that metaphors are powerful references that shape how we think. As with almost anything one might mention or think of, metaphors can be useful in harmful as well as beneficial ways. One of the tasks of dealing with dementia is to study the harmful ones in order to construct ones that are beneficial and support whatever healing there can be in one's own life and in the life of the patient with dementia. My experience is that metaphors are powerful ways in which to understand pieces of the phenomenal world. Lakoff and Johnson in Metaphors We Live By emphasize that the metaphors that saturate our everyday lives are largely unnoticed. I think that is the case for my background shaping of what dementia is. It is instructive to substitute “dementia” for Sontag's examples of cancer and AIDS and to see to what extent deconstructing the metaphors helps understand my own experiences with dementia. What follows are reflections on the metaphors she writes about in her book. I will be substituting dementia for the illnesses she discusses.

Sontag writes about the romantic myth that people are made more interesting by their disease. This was so with those suffering from tuberculosis and how the characters of the patients were thought to be results of the disease. In this sense they were thought to be caused by a mental state or personal dispositions or character flaws. This metaphor is part of descriptions of dementia and especially those forms that result from assumed alcohol abuse or addictions or lifestyle (as in AIDS). It is an example of blaming the patient for her dementia when, in fact, there may not be any evidence that the dementia is caused by anything other than the aging of yet another organ system. An offshoot metaphor of this tendency to blame the patient is to think that the patient is the subject of “divine wrath” and is being punished for transgression. Blaming and shaming are all part of this metaphorical entanglement.

There is a tendency to use the disease as evidence of identity. I think this results, in part, from categorizing dementias as diseases rather than as what might otherwise be a state of the normal aging process. This results from the common practice within and outside medicine to brand a person based on the disease. It is to diminish the whole person by separating the person from the disease. The result is to depersonalize someone. This practice has become so widespread and acceptable that we see it repeated in the wider culture(s) in which the “other” is identified by a habit or trait or conviction, often pejoratively. It establishes a prejudice that becomes infectious. As much as these metaphors are intended to publicly identify someone, they also hide the whole person and a whole identity that is obviously more complex than a stigmatizing label.

Separating the physical body's manifestation from the whole person is often seen as self-betrayal of the body as it breaks down. Once again, this seems to be an effort at blaming and I think many patients feel this way about their conditions. I don't know if this is how a demented person thinks about her condition because that seems to be a state that is beyond articulation. But, once more, it is often seen as a failure of moral character as well as a shameful physical deterioration. It seems there is an unspoken hope that somehow the dementia patient will pull back from the effects of the condition, discover insights, clear away self-deceptions and assumptions—come back to their “right mind.” Here the metaphor implies that the cognitive decline is a choice and a form of self-expression. I think this is an impression early in the process of decline and I have been subject to this thinking, also. A thought was: If only my spouse could see how she is acting and change. Looking back, this thinking was a subconscious way for me to overlook changes that were already part of the dementia process and a source of my own guilt in not being more astute and caring.

Sontag discusses the idea that there are often gender differences in how metaphors of illness are assigned. She says that women have often been viewed as “weaker” than men in a culture in which men are dominant. They have been viewed as more frail and with delicate dispositions and this metaphor of “weakness” because of gender spills over to how ill women are seen as victims or as deserving of their illnesses. Thinking of patients as victims or losers or as evil is common and to assume that they are responsible for falling ill (as well as getting well). This has not been part of my metaphorical usage. Interestingly, Sontag says that thinking of patients as weak or culpable in the larger setting of the social world is projected onto uncountable others who appear weak and, therefore, diseased and subjects to be feared and blamed (I think we saw this during the Covid pandemic when the then president blew his dog whistle in calling the corona virus the “Asian flu,” thus blaming an entire population with his metaphor).

With all of this there are assumptions of contamination, premeditated threat, strengths and weaknesses, and more high-flying notions of insults to the “natural order.” Patients who experience this (and maybe not patients with dementia) might also experience paranoia, thinking that they are targets of criticism, hate, or isolation (violence?). Perhaps in the early phases of the illness there is recognition of outside control of freedoms when others are seen as controllers or police. I do think there has been some of this in my own experience.

The language of warfare is a common metaphorical network to apply to disease. Terms such as battle, victim, invasion, campaign, and survivor are all meant to further separate a patient from the reality of disease as a part of a whole person and not as an object of threat or encroachment. It is my experience with dementia that this metaphorical network does not apply very often to these patients because of the often very slow progress of the condition and the loss of agency. Not only do the metaphors separate a person from the disease but they also separate individuals from others. There is the problem of the self-assignment of metaphorical gloom and shame and the problem of bearing the implications of the metaphors others assign to the patient.

Some, but not all, of the active metaphors mentioned above have been a part of my experience with someone with dementia but not always consciously. How I have viewed dementia from the outside of the condition has tended to separate the living whole person from me. It is said that we can trace this duality of mind separate from the body to Rene Descartes (1596-1650), a separation that our culture/society now embraces with its embrace of science and technology at the expense of the holistic experience of being a human being. The former is variously referred to as the world of phenomena (Schopenhauer) and as left brain hemisphere dominance (Iain McGilchrist in his book The Matter with Things). The latter, holistic being, is couched in the concept of will and the noumenal (Schopenhauer again) and the neuroanatomic dominance of the right brain hemisphere as emphasized by McGilchrist. So, the phenomenal and the noumenal are aspects of a whole world consciousness, separable for the purposes of describing human behavior and the human approach to what we know of the wide world and of our own personal experiences.

My own experience with dementia incorporates not only Christian mysticism but also Zen Buddhism. It is interesting to me that Schopenhauer's philosophy and McGilchrist's incorporation of formulations of philosophy and neuroscience that each has borrowed a great deal from Zen Buddhist thought. I will reflect more on this later in this piece. For now, it is important to this story that I highlight some of the assumptions that were broken apart not too long ago with my experience with dementia. The path through the demolished assumptions really began when it was made clear to me that the person I assumed myself to be was not the same person experienced by my spouse. Her experience was of someone who had intimidated her and annoyed and controlled her for almost the length of our fifty year marriage, it seemed. I had made the assumption that each of us had adjusted to one another, accommodating each other's quirks and habits and that we had a stable understanding of each other. She did not feel that way at all. What I had assumed about myself and who I was was immediately fractured and shattered. This was the beginning of my existential crisis, my “dark night of the soul.” This was described by St. John of the Cross (1542-1591) and I related to his descriptions but could not see how to emerge from this character breakdown. Because my identity was laid bare and in pieces, it had the effect of raising questions about who I was in relation to not only my wife but also our children. Was I who I thought I was all the years of raising four great people? It raised questions about who I had been as a physician (I was informed that I was viewed similarly by the operating room staff as being distant) and what I thought I had accomplished through my work. Everything about my conscious identity was up for scrutiny without any visible supporting structure with which to manage sweeping up the shattered pieces lying all around. This experience lasted for many weeks and the cloud of depression hovered over me all the while I was attempting to understand how my relationship would be with M. She could not perceive my emotional pain and, as with my previous experience with depression, it is not possible for someone who has not experienced depression to comprehend what that dark world is like. Within this there was a very deep sense of pain and loneliness and sadness. This is not unlike what a person suffering from dementia must suffer in the absence of being able to articulate the decline early in the process.

I stumbled about for weeks knowing full well how my body was responding to these stresses. Sleep was disordered and my appetite fell off. I lost all concentration but managed by dint of habit to keep the household tasks from failing. I think it was just the habitual tasks themselves that gave some order to my disordered life. I reacted in ways that didn't seem to be me, but what was I all about anyway? I was intermittently angry and resentful and fearful that I would not be able to pull myself together. My history with depression contributed to this sense of devaluation and failure and disorder. I had failed someone else (maybe lots of people) as well as myself. That is a very perilous place to be emotionally.

So, how did I begin to emerge from under the dark cloud of what seemed like identity dispersal and dissolution? I had some feeling that how I was reacting was not my “true” self, whatever it amounted to. It was a sense more than a decision about what to change. I knew that whatever I did would be “radical” in the way that it would be countercultural, a response that would not depend on all the ways present day culture advertises the manufacture of identity. I read two stories about the life of St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) in which he lived a life of “radical love.” It was radical for him because he was alone in his mystical visions of a God that was not always present to him. Even with this realization and the sadness it created, he continued to do only what he was capable of doing and prayed and shouted and went without sleep and ate very little—many of the same experiences I had had. I was able to relate deeply to his whole body life in pursuit of a visionary love in the face of abandonment. My experience was a feeling of being abandoned by whatever spirit had been incorporated within me to make me who I was. I could see from the life of St. Francis that I had to respond to my world of fragmentation with the same radical love, to love in the face of disdain, indifference, affirmation, or outright abandonment. This was the only way I would be able to begin the healing process necessary for my identity reconstruction.

Very slowly more light entered my world. By permitting radical love to motivate me, other very strong impulses began to stir and to contribute to a more stable emotional life. I found myself falling back into the strange world of Zen Buddhism I had experienced at Upaya Zen Center during my chaplaincy training but I had not embodied it. The experience of being embodied had always puzzled me and I did not feel I had imbibed the essence of what it was. But as I returned to the teachings of Zen I could see that they were finding solid places in my consciousness and that I could call them forth in my experiences with dementia, experiences that sometimes changed every day (an “every day is the same and every day is different” sort of experience). It was this embodied application of Zen precepts and ideas and spirit that became my emotional structural support and continues to be just that today. I suppose my subsequent reading about neuroscience and philosophy corroborated the strength of what Zen provided me, wisdom that stretched back in time over two thousand years. I just knew from an embodied sense that I had this support all along, something along the lines of Schopenhauer's “will,” a life force that remains inaccessible to our consciousness but which animates all that is in the cosmos. It is this force, this energy, that precedes all that now exists in our lives (maybe a philosopher's version of the Big Bang). It is the energy that implies motion and this motion describes the actualization of the unknowable in what we perceive. This is very Zen in its flavor and it is the presence of the energy and the motion that I know in an embodied way is what animates my life and the life of the cosmos. So, it is a cosmology that makes “sense” to me in all its impermanence, unknowability, interdependency, interpenetration, with all things in infinite contexts and relationships with everything that is and dependent co-arising of all phenomena. It is Indra's Net that Buddhists refer to as the binding network in the cosmos.

I could not have emerged from my darkening gloom without St. Francis and Zen. I am not a hero in this story and my journey has not been a hero's journey as described in many traditions in which individuals experience an identity death and are resurrected (sound like reincarnation?) in a different form with a new and resilient consciousness. I do not expect to emerge as a being from the liminal environment of the cocoon wholly transformed. I still struggle with my identity and I still experience frustration and sadness and guilt as circumstances change. But I do not feel as fragile and fragmented as I once did many months ago. I have no idea where this process of our lives will lead and how it will play out but it no longer matters to me as I move now from the circumstance of today to the circumstance of tomorrow. The radical love I am plumbing every day manifests as compassion, more compassion for myself and for others. The love moves me to compassion and compassion moves in the direction of doing good for others (the third of the Three Pure Precepts in Zen). I cannot do otherwise because the source of love and compassion is an embodied “will” and energy, a force that I cannot control and is not part of what I am able to include or exclude from my life by choice. All of this philosophizing is now the operating system, if you will, for meeting the needs of my loved one with dementia. But the truth is that dementia doesn't have to be the issue for me to have greater self-confidence in my ability to see how love and compassion shape acceptance of changing circumstances in the social order as well as in changing contexts and relationships. This new perspective also enables a more flexible assumption of the uncertainties of life, an assumption that will serve me instead of severing me from what I perceive as realities and truths and that these can be as various as there are circumstances and the perceptions of others, in or out of a world of dementia.

This blog piece began with considerations of what power metaphors have, what power language has. Initially I had thought that the assumptions I had made about my spousal relationship were false. Now, looking more deeply and reflecting on the many aspects of metaphors in general, such as their ubiquitous presence in all of our communications and references, I am drawn to the notion that those initial ones can also be sources of newly worked metaphors that support the relationship (and the identity) I thought had foundered and was lost. Now they read differently: bonding for life, trust at the core, an equality of balance, the value of personal sacrifice, identity based in part on affirmation from the other, mutual goals, love as durable and enduring, life partners to the end of life, a mutual supportive dependency. The assumptions that aren't renewable are: that mental decline won't happen and if it does it will affect both of us in tandem, that diseases will always be corrected and overcome, and that mortality will be avoided because our fifty years will be an investment in the stretching out of time (these assumptions are more along the lines of delusions). What seemed at the outset as detrimental mental formations in metaphorical form can have new faces and new meanings at a deeper level of being, of being with oneself and with another. It has helped me see that the original person is never lost, as the life force is never withdrawn. It has helped me to understand more fully what impermanence means for the body but not the spirit and that the process of aging includes regression as well as progress, but always with evolving change. It seems counterintuitive to think that what we face is death of the body but an eternal embrace into the cosmological force that is life in all its forms. Zen teachers say that with birth nothing is added and with death nothing is lost.

One of my intentions in writing my many blog pieces has been to explore the ways in which different individuals view/viewed the world. I have the same intention with this one. In previous ones I have featured a person whose life has demonstrated a different way of seeing. In this one, I am the subject of it but not to suggest that I have arrived anywhere solid about viewing the world. It is about the process of fitting pieces together into a more meaningful whole. This process has evolved into seeing the world differently and yet not different from seeing through a Zen lens. The Zen lens has been the optic for me for many years, heightened and enlightened by my experiences at Upaya Zen Center. The Zen lens has been not only a psychological heuristic but also a metaphysics, a system of awakening to insights and not necessarily an experience of catharsis or transformation. I do not feel transformed. Instead, I am awakening to the reality of no-self, a bedrock Zen idea about personal identity. I see this as an opening to the idea that all of life is energy and motion and we humans fool ourselves into thinking that the more we focus on the self and chase after things, prestige, power, and profit the more we support our identities. But what I see now is that identity is fluid and flows out from whoever we think we are on a tide of energy and motion to support and express the miracle of our being in the first place. How each of us acts in this cosmological force field emerges from the embedded and embodied core of our own beings. For me that is compassion (more than the too-complex “love”) and what I do with compassion is to do good and do good for others. It is a very simple formulation, a personal metaphysics, that strips down being and doing to their essence. It makes living in the world and my world in particular a determined effort to let go of ego and, thus, the self in the coursing of the stream of my life. The awakening opens up inquiry into assumptions and prejudices and frees me of tangled concepts of “authenticity” and whether or not I am being true to myself, such as I imagine myself to be. Curiosity about my life makes me curious about the lives of others.

I am reminded that a lifeway is a laboratory of sorts. We are performing experiments all the time and it is good for me to remember that many experiments don't end up proving the hypotheses or supporting initial assumptions. Even scientists at their work probe their imaginations and seek insights. It is not always clear that their work separates the phenomenal from the noumenal. It seems to me that the best work any one of us could do would be to explore the overlapping realms of both ways of seeing, not only in our inner world but also in the tumbling world of social events, to see them as mutually dependent aspects of what we are able to perceive of the mystery of the world.

The specificity of the phenomenal world, the world of objects and people and events, calls for responses in a multitude of contexts and relationships. But, as the contexts change and make different calls, responding from an embodied compassion and an intention to doing good and doing good for others brings me into a field of sufficient care and outreach. I don't yet have a full comprehension of the vast stretch of Zen concepts and practices, but what I do have is serving me well in this phase of my life, having emerged from a recent complex and confusing phenomenal world of emotions and assumptions to a newly configured vista of possibilities. The metaphor of a streaming life with its implications of organicity, generativity, progression as well as regression, and growth, helps me see my life more clearly through the Zen lens and even through a more muddled kaleidoscope that it sometimes seems to be. Even with some muddling there is the possibility of clarity and insight as the view is ever-changing. There is no need to invent new worlds or new words. Practicing with what is offered in the present moment is good enough. This is metaphysics for me and does not depend on a fixed philosophy as much as it does on a way of noticing and practicing.

I continue to read and learn and process ideas but my intention is to awaken to new insights that expose new levels of understanding about how compassion can be actualized. There are many aspects of Zen metaphysics that I don't understand and many ways in which metaphors play among Zen expressions and manifestations, such as aesthetics and physics, haiku and ikebana, calligraphy and koans. Buddhism at its inception (the Buddha was not a Buddhist of course) was a foundational change in how to view the world and how humans could interact with it and it is fascinating to me that all that the Buddhist “Big Bang” produced is continually in circulation, streaming in all parts of the cosmos. What we humans do with all of its energy and motion is up to us (some aspect of free will, I suppose) with causes and conditions and ramifications. Are we awake enough to imagine and understand how to use the energy granted to us? Can we look inward deeply enough to discern how to respond to the cries of the world?

In some ways this blog piece is just another example of the solipsism that defines much of 21^st century America (and maybe the world). It is focused on how the ego (and the left brain hemisphere) is fixed in its assumptions and prejudices and prefers to maintain them. But it is also an attempt to rise above the rigidity of the ego and to see the world differently in a more expansive and creative way (the right brain hemisphere world). This may, in fact, be just another delusion but somehow this uplift feels right in an embodied way with compassion at its core. Rather than dwell or wallow in the lower levels of consciousness, this is an attempt at bearing witness, non-duality, and to make an offering to someone who might be experiencing a similar awareness or even crisis. I do not think of it as catharsis or transformation, as I have said, but an awakening to a different way of seeing reality. I am fairly certain that my intended practice of compassion will fall to the demands of the ego now and then but that I will be able to refresh my intentions and, once again, enter the streaming of life. This approach seems right to me as I have worked my way from the turmoil of facing a loved one with dementia to a greater understanding of how dementia alters the phenomenal world in ways that forcefully compel compassion from our hearts. In doing so, I practice offering compassion to many others who suffer and perhaps this includes all of us wounded human beings. Saying “yes” to life invites everything and everyone into one's own big tent and makes room for the rich and famous as well as the poor and unwashed.

Now I find the metaphysical can be the structural approach to using the kaleidoscopic Zen lens. Where do I stand to hold the optics to my eyes? Is there a way to focus? Can I now see more clearly? How do all the pieces fit together? How long will this intention last?