Early this morning, before sunrise, my Wife was driving me across town toward work when a large black dog against the backdrop of the black asphalt appeared before the car. We missed it. About six blocks further on we approached a stop light which was green, prompting us to proceed safely through the intersection. I observed a dark blue van approach on the cross street from our left, briefly hesitate at his red light, and then pull straight on through. This time, to miss it, my Wife had to hit the brakes and come to a stop.

The sun has not even peeked out and already, two obstacles successfully dodged. Have we filled our quota for the day? Or is it going to be a particularly dodgy day?

Are the roadblocks that are set in our way random? Or is there a plan?

The reason I asked my Wife to drive me this morning in the first place is because 3 of the last 4 Tuesdays the first bus of the day has not arrived, and I wanted to avoid that potential permutation to my plans with a quiet ride in pleasant company. In so doing did I unleash a chain of events put in place to punish my last-minute modification of morning routine? Perhaps the black dog and blue van did not see us because we weren't supposed to be there. Perhaps the black and blue descriptors are portentous. Or perhaps we really weren't there; perhaps events really played out as they were originally intended and the adventurous journey across town was simply a delusion shared by my Wife and I; (or maybe not shared - I'll have to remember to ask her tonight if she remembers this). Or perhaps it is all irrelevant since we are all in the Matrix and only living vicariously through our thoughts anyway.

Is this all Balderdash and Poppycock? Or is this a Eureka Moment?

I lean towards Balderdash and Poppycock because we really don't know. In fact, in the strictest sense all we really know is that we really don't know; and if we really don't know, how can we even know that?

Though these ruminations on reality are fascinating, I have come to regard them in the same way I do thoughts of ghosts, poltergeist, and other alleged supernatural phenomena - as entertainment. Until I know, I cannot bring myself to believe. And since I really don't know much of anything, (unless I do), then all I can do is deal with what I perceive in front of me - now - in this moment; and based on my (poor) memory of previous moments, I can guide my thoughts and actions accordingly toward the next moment.

I have been here before. Is there anything new to learn from this mish-mash of honorable uncertainties, thwarted contingencies, happenstance by design, and meditative desperation? Can I glean anything from the frictional heat and dust created by these grinding contradictions? Am I just buying time with copious questions, quick-witted wordplay, and affluent alliteration? Perhaps...

... ... ... ... ...

But, (after a day to think), perhaps there is something to be found where the contradictions clash; (oops - another alliterative slip). To illustrate, think about meditative desperation - when I say "I learn from the past, to live in the moment, for the future," its contact point with 'the urgency of daily responsibilities' is 'the moment'. On the one hand we must prioritize by (often quickly) choosing the best action in a given moment because the urgency of 'now' is all we have, and on the other hand we must (1) breathe, (2) thoughtfully consider the past, and (3) calculate a desired future, which all sounds (with today's expected pace) painstaking and slow. But the contradiction does not blight or destroy the common ground found in the moment. And in this case I believe by focusing on this common ground, (and with practice), the moment will become less fleeting, thus enabling us to better balance the unavoidable urgency and the contemplative mindfulness, and perhaps enabling us to better see the unmasked face of reality.

I believe that by definition all contradictions and/or contrasting perspectives and positions must have a common ground. Even in controversial issues such as abortion (with a common ground of compassion), spirituality (with a common ground of goodness), and politics (with a common ground of communal health and advancement) we can find a point from which to proceed, as long as there is initial agreement to do no harm. Is this naive and simplistic? Perhaps so, but it is also cathartic.

Once simplified to an identifiable common ground, it immediately becomes less simplistic with numerous complications in the progression from this common ground to a mutually beneficial resolution or (if not completely resolved) evolution. For example, there will be disagreement as to what constitutes harm. Is 'a greater good' valid? Or must we consider harm to even one individual as excessive? Each contradiction / disagreement would of course have to be a different process / discussion, but each specific discussion will have some commonalities that complicate. These would include (the aforementioned) varying types and degrees of harm and what/how much (if any) harm is acceptable, parameters of indulgence for idiosyncrasies / eccentricities that do not violate the agreed-upon definition of 'do no harm', and accountability for staying within the bounds of the common ground. (There are likely more, but I believe this process and these complications will serve as an initial framework for purposes of examining the contradiction presented below.)

Last week I maintained that much of our present-day reality is unrealistic, and I presented two contradictory perspectives of manifest reality. For those who ascribe to this theory of realitivity, some may choose (at varying times in varying circumstance) to see Life as runoff pain and suffering, while others may be more adept at alleviating Life's pain and incoherence. It turns out upon close examination that the common ground between these two opposing viewpoints, is suffering. To proceed from this point is hard work, which is why some choose to lose themselves in the trivialities (some of which are urgent, but still trivial) of daily existence, and others choose to buy, create, and/or believe in an incredibly unrealistic reality.

The question that has been brought to my attention this week is, how can one who only sees (or is presently overwhelmed by) the suffering side of reality be brought to see the active hope found in Compassion, Communal Responsibility, Inner Peace, Exoteric Goodness, and Hard Work? I believe the answer begins with setting the example and debunking the delusional sense of importance placed in today's trivialities. Too many of us believe that if we don't have money, a good job, a devoted relationship, lots of good friends, and/or if we are depressed or simply not cheerful or satisfied, then there is something wrong with us and we have failed. This is not true! This is a myth propagated and perpetuated by histrionic proponents of pretentiousness. Life. Is. Suffering!

So if we agree on the principle to 'Do No Harm' and we recognize the common ground of suffering, it would appear beneficial progress to practice an active acceptance of suffering, which can be accomplished (at least in part) by acknowledging it, verbalizing it, and exhibiting other behaviors consistent with its inevitability. In some circles these behaviors may be considered odd since we have been indoctrinated into a societal belief that happiness is rightfully deserved and necessary for success. For one to discuss and actively acknowledge suffering will potentially create in others an air of condescending pity. We need to dispel these feelings and beliefs, and we must widen these parameters by being truthful - first with oneself and then (whenever possible) with others.

Accountability then comes to revolve around the aforementioned 'active acceptance of suffering' and a compassionate expectation of hard work. It seems that today we have this backwards: we expect those in obvious pain to work hard while we sweep them under the rug because they distract us from our facade of (lower-case) happiness, thus teaching others who hurt to suffer in silence. I will say it again because it is important - We must first openly and actively accept that suffering is inevitable, and only then can we (in good conscience) compassionately expect a mutually beneficial, osmotic return of effort.

We too often fail in this regard.

This week I have seen our failure.

This week my heart hurts for a young man in the South, and the hundreds of thousands like him around the world, who (at some point, this year) will only see the overwhelming nature of suffering... who will not see the active hope offered through hard work... who may only see trivialities in which they are lacking... who will never realize the impact of their departure... who will never know the Truth and Wisdom to be found in suffering...

This week my heart hurts...