terça-feira, 20 de outubro de 2026

Silent Friend of Many Distances


okeyphotos






Silent friend of many distances, feel
how your breath enlarges all of space.
Let your presence ring out like a bell
into the night. What feeds upon your face

grows mighty from the nourishment thus offered.
Move through transformation, out and in.
What is the deepest loss that you have suffered?
If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine.

In this immeasurable darkness, be the power
that rounds your senses in their magic ring,
the sense of their mysterious encounter.

And if the earthly no longer knows your name,
whisper to the silent earth: I’m flowing.
To the flashing water say: I am.




Rainer Maria Rilke




 

The Secret Garden and the Function of the Friend

 




Not every friendship is a threat. 
Not every ex is unfinished business. 
Not every opposite-sex connection is inappropriate, and 
not every partner who feels uneasy is automatically seeing the situation clearly. 
Healthy people can have friendships outside their romantic relationship. 
Secure people can maintain respectful connections with people from their past. 
Mature couples do not need to treat every outside bond as evidence of betrayal.
But there is a particular kind of third-party connection that does not feel neutral, even when nothing explicitly sexual has happened. 
The texts may be explainable. 
The friendship may have a long history. 
The ex may be described as “just someone I still care about.” 
The coworker may be “just easy to talk to.” 
The messages may contain nothing dramatic enough to convict anyone in the court of obvious infidelity. 

And yet the primary partner feels something shifting. 
They feel displaced, not necessarily cheated on. 
They feel the emotional architecture of the relationship changing. 
Something that should be simple begins to feel protected, hidden, defended, and strangely untouchable.

That is the territory of this essay. 
The issue is not whether a person can have friends. 
The issue is what those friendships are doing inside the emotional system of the relationship.

For people who lean avoidant, especially those who fear engulfment, dependency, exposure, or the loss of autonomy, exes and opposite-sex friendships can become more than ordinary social connections. They can become pressure valves. They can become buffers. They can become exits that do not look like exits yet. They can offer validation without the vulnerability of full commitment, intimacy without accountability, attention without surrender, and distance without the loneliness of truly being alone. The uploaded source material frames this dynamic around delayed breakup processing, phantom exes, one-foot-in/one-foot-out behavior, backups, triangulation, secrecy, deleting messages, defensiveness, and fighting for ambiguous friendships over the emotional safety of the relationship.

That collection of behaviors sounds harsh when named all at once, and it should be handled carefully. Avoidant attachment is not villainy. It is not a moral diagnosis. It is a protective strategy, usually built long before the current partner ever arrived. 
Many avoidant people learned, through temperament, family dynamics, past betrayal, neglect, enmeshment, or emotional overwhelm, that closeness is dangerous. 
They may crave love, but become dysregulated when love starts to require dependence, exposure, consistency, or surrender. 
They may want intimacy in theory while quietly resisting the conditions that make intimacy possible.
That is why third-party connections matter so much. 
They are often not random. They are functional.

In attachment research, secure attachment has been associated with greater trust, commitment, satisfaction, and interdependence in romantic relationships than avoidant or anxious attachment. 
Simpson’s longitudinal study of dating couples, for example, found that securely attached people reported greater relationship trust and satisfaction than insecurely attached people. DeWall and colleagues later found that avoidant attachment predicted greater interest in romantic alternatives and infidelity-related outcomes, mediated in part by lower commitment. 
These studies do not mean every avoidant person cheats, keeps backups, or behaves dishonestly. 
They do, however, support a more careful claim: avoidant attachment can make alternatives psychologically important because alternatives help the person feel less trapped by dependence on one intimate bond.

That is the heart of the matter. 
The third person is often not the real issue. 
The third person is the instrument. 
The deeper issue is the avoidant partner’s relationship to intimacy itself.




The Problem Is Not the Friend. It Is the Function.
A secure friendship outside a relationship has a different emotional signature. 
It is integrated. It does not require secrecy to survive. It does not depend on ambiguity. It does not make the primary partner feel foolish for noticing its intensity. It can be named, bounded, and placed honestly within the life of the couple. 
The friend knows about the relationship. 
The partner knows about the friend. 
The emotional tone does not have to change when someone walks into the room. 
There is no private language, no hidden frequency, no need to delete, minimize, or perform innocence.

A defended friendship is different. 
It may be described as casual, but treated as sacred. It may be framed as harmless, but protected with unusual force. The avoidant partner may insist that “nothing happened,” which may even be technically true, while avoiding the deeper question of why the connection needed so much privacy, intensity, or protection in the first place. 
The partner asking questions is forced into a strange position: 
they are not reacting to one obvious betrayal, but to an atmosphere. 
They are responding to tone, concealment, emotional displacement, and the sense that another person has been given access to a room in the avoidant partner that the primary relationship is not allowed to enter.
This is why these dynamics are so difficult to talk about. 
The concerned partner often lacks a clean piece of evidence. They have fragments. A deleted message. A softened explanation. 
A friendship that is supposedly meaningless but somehow non-negotiable. 
An ex who keeps appearing at moments of relational stress. 
A coworker who receives tenderness, humor, or responsiveness that has disappeared from the primary relationship. 
A “friend” whose presence seems to increase whenever intimacy, accountability, or commitment starts to deepen.

The avoidant partner may genuinely experience the concern as control. To them, the third-party connection can represent freedom, identity, independence, and relief from relational demand. 
They may not consciously think, I am keeping this person around as an exit route. 
More often, the internal experience is vaguer: 
This person is easy. This person does not ask too much of me. This person does not make me feel trapped. This person reminds me I still have a self outside the relationship.

But what feels like self-preservation to one partner can feel like abandonment to the other.

That is the central fracture. 
The avoidant partner experiences the third-party bond as oxygen. 
The primary partner experiences it as a leak in the room.

In healthy relationships, outside friendships do not compete with the couple’s emotional safety. 
They coexist with it. 
  • But when a third-party connection becomes the place someone goes to regulate discomfort with intimacy, it begins to serve a defensive function. 
  • It becomes a way to dial down closeness without having to say, “I am scared of how close we are getting.” 
  • It becomes a way to feel desired without having to be vulnerable. 
  • It becomes a way to preserve the fantasy of optionality while still enjoying the benefits of a committed partner.

This is where the language of “just friends” becomes insufficient. 
A label cannot tell you what a connection is doing. 
The same friendship can be harmless in one relationship and corrosive in another, depending on secrecy, emotional intensity, timing, boundaries, and whether the primary relationship is being protected or undermined. 
The question is not simply, “Are they friends?” 
The question is, “What does this friendship allow the avoidant partner to avoid?”



Avoidance and the Fear of Being Fully Claimed
Avoidant attachment is often misunderstood as a lack of feeling. In reality, many avoidant people feel deeply; they simply do not always know how to remain present when feeling deeply begins to threaten their autonomy. 
Closeness can activate a fear of being engulfed, controlled, obligated, exposed, or dependent. 
  1. A partner asking for transparency may feel, to them, less like intimacy and more like surveillance. 
  2. A partner asking for reassurance may feel less like connection and more like demand. 
  3. A partner asking to clarify boundaries may feel less like care and more like captivity.

This does not make the avoidant partner’s behavior harmless. It only explains why they may defend it so fiercely. 
If their deepest wound is organized around the fear of being consumed by another person’s needs, then any request for relational accountability can feel like a threat to the self. They may experience ordinary relationship expectations as attempts to shrink their world. They may confuse secrecy with privacy, emotional distance with freedom, and ambiguity with autonomy.

That is how an ex, a flirtatious friend, or an emotionally charged opposite-sex connection can become so useful. 
The avoidant partner may not need to leave the relationship. 
They may only need to know they could.
 
They may not need to cheat. 
They may only need to maintain a private channel where they feel unclaimed. 

They may not want to end things with their partner. 
They may only want relief from the feeling of being fully known, fully expected, fully accountable.

This is why “one foot in, one foot out” is such an accurate phrase. 
  • The avoidant partner may want the relationship, but not the totality of it. 
  • They may want closeness with an escape hatch. 
  • Commitment with deniability. 
  • Love with a protected private chamber. 
  • They may want the warmth of partnership while quietly preserving alternative sources of validation that remind them they are not trapped.

The tragedy is that this strategy often creates the very pressure it was designed to avoid.

  1. The more the avoidant partner hides or minimizes, the more the primary partner senses danger. 
  2. The more the primary partner senses danger, the more they ask questions. 
  3. The more questions they ask, the more the avoidant partner feels controlled. 
  4. The more controlled the avoidant partner feels, the more they retreat into the third-party connection as proof that someone still lets them breathe. 

What began as a self-protective buffer becomes a machine for producing mistrust.

Avoidance does not merely fear engulfment. It can create the conditions that make closeness feel engulfing.



The Secret Garden
Every avoidant relationship has a geography. 
  1. There is the public relationship, the one other people can see. 
  2. There is the private relationship, the one that exists in bedrooms, text threads, arguments, silences, apologies, and repairs. 
  3. Then, in some avoidant dynamics, there is a third space: the secret garden.

The secret garden is not always an affair. That is what makes it difficult to name. 
  • It may be an ex who still receives emotional updates. 
  • It may be a friend whose messages are deleted. 
  • It may be a coworker whose attention feels validating. 
  • It may be a long-standing opposite-sex friendship that is technically platonic but emotionally guarded from the primary partner. 
  • It may be a person who is kept close enough to matter but far enough away to deny.

The secret garden is where ambiguity is allowed to survive because no one is allowed to look at it too directly.

The avoidant partner may keep these worlds separate with remarkable skill. 
The partner hears one version of the friendship. The friend hears another version of the relationship. 
The ex hears enough to remain emotionally relevant but not enough to be held accountable to the couple’s boundaries. 
The avoidant partner becomes the sole narrator, translator, and gatekeeper between compartments. 
They control what each person knows, what each person is allowed to feel, and how much reality is permitted to cross between worlds.

This compartmentalization can feel like freedom to the avoidant partner. 
It allows them to maintain multiple emotional climates without having to integrate them. 
With the partner, they may feel pressured, known, challenged, or expected to repair. 
With the friend or ex, they may feel light, admired, uncomplicated, less accountable. 
The contrast itself becomes addictive. 
The avoidant does not have to ask why the current relationship feels heavy. They can simply escape into a connection where nothing is being asked of them yet.

But the heaviness of the primary relationship may not be proof that the partner is too demanding. Sometimes the primary relationship feels heavy because it is the only place where the avoidant partner is being asked to be real.

That sentence matters. 
  1. A low-responsibility connection will often feel easier than a committed one. 
  2. An ex who no longer shares a life with you is easier than a partner who needs consistency. 
  3. A friend who only gets the charming, unburdened version of you is easier than someone who has seen your contradictions. 
  4. A flirtatious thread is easier than a hard conversation. 
  5. A person who does not require repair will always feel simpler than the person who has been hurt by you and is still asking you to show up.

The secret garden, then, is not always about sexual betrayal. Sometimes it is about preserving a version of the self that does not have to be accountable. 
Inside that private enclosure, the avoidant partner can feel desirable without being responsible, connected without being known, independent without being alone. 
The friend or ex becomes less important as a person than as a psychological location.

That is why the current partner can feel crazy trying to explain the harm. 
They are not only responding to a text thread or a lunch or an old flame. 
  • They are responding to the discovery that the relationship does not have full access to the truth. 
  • They are responding to the feeling that there is a private emotional economy operating behind the stated commitment. 
  • They are responding to the sense that their partner has reserved a hidden place where the rules of the relationship do not apply.

The danger is not always what happened. Sometimes the danger is how much had to be hidden to keep it feeling harmless.

That distinction is central. 
Many avoidant partners defend themselves by saying, “Nothing happened.” 
But trust does not only depend on what happened. 
Trust also depends on what was concealed, minimized, distorted, deleted, or protected from view. 

  1. If a connection is innocent only because no one is allowed to inspect it, then its innocence is fragile. 
  2. If a friendship can survive only when the partner is kept in partial darkness, then the friendship is not integrated into the relationship. It is being maintained against it.


Privacy, Secrecy, and the Avoidant’s Private Self
A relationship does not entitle one person to total access to another person’s inner life. 
Privacy matters. Individuality matters. 
Adults are allowed to have thoughts, friendships, histories, and conversations that are not instantly surrendered to a partner for inspection. A secure relationship is not built on surveillance. It does not require passwords, interrogations, or the constant auditing of another person’s autonomy.

But privacy and secrecy are not the same thing.
Privacy protects individuality. Secrecy protects a hidden reality.

Privacy says, “This part of my life is mine, but it is not a threat to us.” 
Secrecy says, “I need this part of my life to remain unexamined because if you saw it clearly, it would change how safe you feel with me.” 


Privacy can coexist with transparency because it is not organized around concealment. 
Secrecy cannot. Secrecy requires management. It requires omission. It requires selective disclosure, defensive explanations, and often, eventually, the rewriting of the concerned partner as insecure or controlling.

This distinction is especially important in avoidant dynamics because avoidant partners often experience transparency as intrusion. The request itself may feel invasive, regardless of whether the concern is reasonable. If they have organized their identity around self-reliance, independence, and emotional self-containment, then being asked to account for a private connection can feel like being stripped of sovereignty. 

They may say, “I should not have to report everything to you.” 
They may say, “You do not own me.” 
They may say, “You are making something out of nothing.”

Sometimes those statements are true. 
Some partners do become controlling. 
Some jealousies are projections. 
Some boundaries are actually attempts to manage anxiety by restricting another person’s life. 
A serious essay has to acknowledge that. 
But the existence of unhealthy jealousy does not absolve avoidant secrecy. 
A partner’s insecurity does not automatically make the behavior innocent.

That is where many avoidant partners hide. 
They find the least flattering interpretation of the partner’s concern and argue against that. 
Instead of answering the real question — why did this need to be hidden? — they answer an easier one: why are you so insecure? 
Instead of examining the ambiguity, they attack the discomfort. 
The partner’s reaction becomes the problem, and the concealed behavior becomes secondary.

This is how trust collapses. 
Not because two people disagree about boundaries, but because one person refuses to let the real issue stay in the room long enough to be understood.

In a healthy relationship, the conversation might sound like: 
“I understand why this made you uncomfortable. I do not see this friendship the same way you do, but I care that it affected your sense of safety. Let’s talk about what boundaries would protect both my autonomy and our relationship.” 
That kind of response does not require immediate agreement. 
It requires goodwill. It requires the partner to treat relational safety as something worth protecting, not as an accusation to defeat.

In an avoidant defense cycle, the conversation sounds very different. 
“You are being controlling. I am allowed to have friends. Nothing happened. You are insecure. This is exactly why I did not tell you. You always make things into a problem.” 
The content may vary, but the structure is consistent: 
the concern is reframed as pathology, the behavior is minimized, and the avoidant partner’s autonomy becomes the only value under discussion.

The relationship itself disappears from the conversation.

That is the quiet devastation of these third-party dynamics. 
The fight is rarely only about the ex, the friend, or the messages. 
  1. It is about whether the primary relationship has enough dignity to be considered. 
  2. It is about whether a partner’s sense of safety matters. 
  3. It is about whether autonomy and commitment can be integrated, or whether the avoidant partner believes love means keeping one part of themselves permanently unreachable.

A secure relationship does not require a person to have no private life. 
It requires that the private life not become a hiding place from the truth.




R.R. Leone





domingo, 18 de outubro de 2026

Tree


StockCake






Yes, often an olive wants to be a fish,
An almond often wishes to be a bird
I am pretty well accustomed to being like this now
Just a while ago I changed into human form
For a few minutes
My supple soft skin, my bones and the flesh wrapping around them
They all felt eerie to me
But in a while when I revert to being a tree
How fondly I will reminisce
About the human body I have now
My fingers, nails, and joints

How marvelous!
I have bones; I have muscles to pull my bones,
And skin covers all
My blood is coursing on and on
I can move myself, like this, any way I want to
I can point at the sky
I can stroke my hair!

Grasses, leaves, fruit or branches cannot do what I can –
They stretch their branches, turn their leaves
Lazily toward the light,
Yes, really, “lazily” as you’d say in human tongue
But when I was a tree, it did not feel so lazy
Rather, it was more like securely
Rather, it was more like steadily
What is this fury inside the human body?
It makes me dizzy
Look
Bones and muscles shed their old selves
To make new bones and muscles

Much has changed between now and just a while ago
When I first met you
So this is what aging means, isn’t it?

Uh,
Your two manly hands
Like rough palm leaves
Rest on my two shoulders
What is this numbing warmth your hands convey
To my muscles and bones?
To speak
We trees don’t have words
Time is running out
Once the time comes, I won’t ever be
A human like this, forever
Tell me
How else are humans different from trees?
What is this?
What is this mysterious warmth
That comes to me through your fingers?
Tell me,
Something I missed doing
Not much time left
Yes –
What a pleasant thing to do, to respond.

Please, tell me.

As I place my hand here like so
The sound of your blood rushing in your chest
Grows so fast

Time is running out. Please, please tell me
What is the biggest thing I missed doing.

I feel as if there is something I should do, something fervent
Something I’d move my muscles for
Something I’d violently rub my joints for
To chat
Isn’t there something else that is more important?
What is it?
What is this something humans do to be wholly human?

Just a while back
When you placed your manly hands on my womanly shoulders
My female muscles and bones felt a certain
Fulfillment and warmth
Doesn’t that have much to do with
What I have yet to do?
Am I not missing something
Something violent
That goes well with the fury of metabolism
In this human body that holds bones and muscles?

But maybe I am wrong
Am I just babbling human words
While thinking like a tree?
What?
Are you saying I’ve missed doing something?
Tell me
Please
Why do you hesitate?
So you are saying, aren’t you, it is different from
Talking,
Pointing,
Jumping,
Counting numbers and the like?

Goodness, how pained you look!

I thought humans had a wonderful thing called words
Which allow you
To convey, to inform or to express anything you want to,
But there are things that words can’t help –
Ah, there’s no time left

I want to know
What it is that I missed doing

With no words,
This
Is what you can tell me, isn’t it?

As you clasp my shoulder as you are doing now
With your five fingers wrapped around my shoulder
Your thumb
Your forefinger
Your middle finger
Your ring finger
And your little finger
Five shocks run through me

Hurry! Time is running out!



Hiroshi Kawasaki




Why Japan Listens to Rain




 

Japan Does Not See Nature the Way the West Does
In many parts of the world, nature is something to overcome.

You build walls against it.
Control it.
Conquer it.

But Japan developed differently.
Because Japan lost that battle long ago.

This is a country where the ground itself moves without warning.

Earthquakes
Typhoons
Tsunamis
Volcanoes

For most of Japanese history, humans were never fully in control here. And when a civilization spends thousands of years living beside overwhelming natural forces, its psychology changes.

Instead of domination, Japan developed coexistence.

That difference still shapes everyday life in ways foreigners immediately feel — even if they cannot explain it.

Take rain, for example.

In many countries, rain is treated as an inconvenience. Something that ruins plans.
In Japan, rain has moods.

There are dozens of words for different kinds of rain. 
Spring rain. 
Sudden evening rain. 
Cold winter rain. 
Quiet rain that falls softly enough to almost disappear into the air.

And Japanese people notice these differences emotionally.
Not intellectually. Emotionally.

You can feel it in anime scenes where nothing “happens,” yet rain transforms the atmosphere completely.
You can hear it in the silence of a Kyoto alley during drizzle.
You can even see it in convenience stores, where seasonal umbrellas appear almost before the clouds arrive.

To many foreigners, this sensitivity feels poetic.
But it is not simply poetry.
It is survival memory.


The Jomon World Never Fully Disappeared
Long before samurai existed, Japan was shaped by people now called the Jomon.(縄文)

The Jomon period lasted for thousands of years — unusually long for an ancient culture — and much of life remained deeply tied to forests, rivers, mountains, and seasonal cycles.
Unlike civilizations built around massive conquest empires, Jomon society developed inside dense nature.

And when people live closely with nature for generations, they begin to feel something unusual:

Nature is not “separate.”
It becomes alive.

This feeling later evolved into what became Shinto — not a religion centered around a single god, but a worldview where spirits can exist anywhere.

In rocks.
Trees.
Waterfalls.
Wind.

Even today, many Japanese people who are not religious in a Western sense still instinctively respond to places spiritually.

A giant old tree wrapped with sacred rope.
A quiet shrine hidden inside the city.
A mountain path covered in mist.

There is often an unspoken feeling that certain spaces contain presence.
Not metaphorically.
Emotionally.

This is one reason Japan often feels spiritually “quiet” rather than aggressively religious.
The sacred is not separated from ordinary life.
It is woven into it.

“In Japan, nature is rarely just scenery. It is atmosphere.”

That emotional relationship changes how people see themselves too.
Humans are not standing above nature.
They are inside it.
And that creates a very different personality from societies built around controlling environments.


Why Japanese People Notice Tiny Seasonal Changes
One of the most fascinating things in Japan is how obsessed people are with tiny shifts in season.
Not just weather.
Tiny emotional transitions.

Cherry blossom forecasts appear on national television.
People discuss the exact moment leaves begin changing color.
Convenience stores redesign products constantly around seasonal moods.

Even food changes subtly every few weeks.

Foreigners often joke that Japan has “limited edition culture.”
But underneath that is something deeper:
An emotional attachment to impermanence.

Japanese culture trains people to notice fleeting moments before they disappear.

The first cicada sound of summer.
The smell of rain on hot pavement.
The first cold wind in autumn.

These moments matter because they are temporary.

This sensitivity is difficult to fully translate into English because many Western societies prioritize permanence, achievement, and stability.

Japan became emotionally attached to transition itself.
That is why so many Japanese aesthetics revolve around things that do not last:

Cherry blossoms.
Snow.
Mist.
Fading light.
Old wood.

Beauty becomes more powerful precisely because it disappears.
And this mindset affects communication too.

Japanese conversations often avoid rigid certainty.
Emotions are implied rather than declared.
Meaning drifts gently instead of arriving sharply.

To outsiders, this can feel frustratingly vague.
But culturally, ambiguity sometimes feels more natural than absolute clarity.
Because nature itself is ambiguous.

Rain changes.
Seasons shift.
Nothing stays fixed.

So why should emotions?



The Emotional Climate of Japan
Climate shapes culture more than many people realize.

Japan is humid.
Very humid.
And strangely enough, humidity changes emotional behavior.

In dry climates, boundaries feel sharper.
Buildings separate inside from outside more aggressively.

But Japanese summers blur everything.

Air feels heavy.
Sound carries differently.
Clothes cling to skin.
Cicadas scream endlessly from trees.

The environment constantly presses itself onto human awareness.
You are never fully separated from the atmosphere around you.

Some scholars believe this environmental closeness influenced Japan’s highly contextual communication style.

People learn to “sense” situations rather than define them directly.
This is part of why silence functions differently in Japan.

In many Western cultures, silence can feel awkward.
In Japan, silence often carries information.
It allows emotional space.
Room for intuition.
Room for reading the atmosphere.

This can create extraordinary subtlety.
But it can also create emotional exhaustion.
Because when communication depends heavily on sensing unstated feelings, people can become deeply anxious about disrupting harmony.

Japan’s beauty and pressure often come from the same source.


Japan’s Real Secret May Not Be Technology
Foreigners often arrive in Japan expecting the future.
And yes — they find neon cities, bullet trains, and vending machines selling hot coffee.

But eventually, many visitors notice something stranger beneath the modern surface.
Japan does not emotionally behave like a futuristic civilization.
In many ways, it behaves like an ancient nature culture wearing modern clothes.

A society still listening carefully to rain.
Still organizing life around seasons.
Still emotionally responding to silence, mist, shadows, and passing beauty.

And perhaps this is why Japan feels strangely calming to so many foreigners.

Not because life here is easy.
But because Japan still allows people to feel connected to impermanence.
To smallness.
To atmosphere.

But the deepest layer of Japanese culture goes even further than nature.
Because eventually, Japan transformed emotion itself into an art form.
A civilization where beauty was found not in saying everything —
but in leaving something unsaid.

And that story begins in the Heian period.



Question for Readers
What is the smallest moment you remember from Japan?

Not the biggest tourist attraction — but the tiny detail that somehow stayed in your memory.




KOTONOHA JAPAN




sábado, 17 de outubro de 2026

Phase One


Alexander Krivitskiy






For leaving the fridge open
last night, I forgive you.
For conjuring white curtains
instead of living your life.

For the seedlings that wilt, now,
in tiny pots, I forgive you.
For saying no first
but yes as an afterthought.

I forgive you for hideous visions
after childbirth, brought on by loss
of sleep. And when the baby woke
repeatedly, for your silent rebuke

in the dark, “What’s your beef?”
I forgive your letting vines
overtake the garden. For fearing
your own propensity to love.

For losing, again, your bag
en route from San Francisco;
for the equally heedless drive back
on the caffeine-fueled return.

I forgive you for leaving
windows open in rain
and soaking library books
again. For putting forth

only revisions of yourself,
with punctuation worked over,
instead of the disordered truth,
I forgive you. For singing mostly

when the shower drowns
your voice. For so admiring
the drummer you failed to hear
the drum. In forgotten tin cans,

may forgiveness gather. Pooling
in gutters. Gushing from pipes.
A great steady rain of olives
from branches, relieved

of cruelty and petty meanness.
With it, a flurry of wings, thirteen
gray pigeons. Ointment reserved
for healers and prophets. I forgive you.

I forgive you. For feeling awkward
and nervous without reason.
For bearing Keats’s empty vessel
with such calm you worried

you had, perhaps, no moral
center at all. For treating your mother
with contempt when she deserved
compassion. I forgive you. I forgive

you. I forgive you. For growing
a capacity for love that is great
but matched only, perhaps,
by your loneliness. For being unable

to forgive yourself first so you
could then forgive others and
at last find a way to become
the love that you want in this world.




 Dilruba Ahmed




 

The Body Remembers. Can It Forgive?




Krm Carmen



The body remembers 
what the mind cannot. 
On forgiving our own parts, 
forgiveness before justice, and 
what hoʻoponopono and lōkahi teach 
about restoring balance.





Remembering is the healing
We have been handed a mechanic’s idea of healing. 
Something broke. Find the part. Fix it. 
Return to how you were before.

Twenty-five years of sitting with people at the edge of what they could bear has taught me a different story. 

Healing begins with remembering — with the mind when it can, and with the body, which kept the record when the mind could not.

Then comes troost — that beautiful Dutch word for ‘comfort’ that English never quite holds. 
A troost-ing hug. 
A troost-ing warm room, blanked or cuppa tea. 
Someone who stays.

Then grief — for what happened, and for everything that never got to happen.

Then forgiveness.

And then the quiet, unglamorous courage of standing exactly where you are — scarred, softened, a little wiser — and taking the next step from here. You walk on as the one you have become.


The body remembers
Some memories arrive as stories. Others arrive as a tightening throat, a sudden chill, a heart that races when someone raises their voice in the next room. 
No words. Just the body, saying this again.

Psychology calls this implicit memory.

The amygdala — the brain’s early-warning centre — matures long before the hippocampus, which files our experiences into time and narrative. So what happened to us before we had language, or in moments too overwhelming to process, is often stored as sensation and reflex.

Stress hormones press those imprints in deeper. 
Years later, a smell or a tone of voice opens the file, and the thinking brain quietly goes offline while the body prepares to fight, flee or freeze.

This is what Bessel van der Kolk meant when he wrote that the body keeps the score. 
It is why Peter Levine, Pat Ogden and so many somatic clinicians ad workers, including myself — work with sensation and movement too, rather than words alone. 

Talking about the wound matters. The body also needs to finish the gesture it was never allowed to complete — and to learn, slowly, that the danger has passed.

The Hawaiian teachers and elders I am learning from would not find any of this surprising. In their tradition, thought and feeling both rise from the naʻau — the gut, the viscera. Truth is something you feel right there. 
And when a body falls ill while a family carries unspoken conflict, the illness is read as a message that something between people, ancestors and land has fallen out of balance.


Forgiving the body
Here is something I hear in my practice frequently: 
‘How do I connect to my body, and — trust my body again?’ 
or something like: 
‘My body betrayed me…’

It froze when it should have run. 
It went numb. 
It left myself. 
It said YES when everything in you meant NO. 
It got sick, gained weight, stopped bleeding, stopped sleeping, kept shaking long after the danger was gone.

And so we turn away from the very home we live in — unconsiously, for years. 
We punish it, override it, ignore its signals, treat it as the accomplice to what was done to us, oftentimes without consciously realizing or choosing to do this.

Polyvagal theory gives us a gentle explaination. 
Freeze and collapse are ancient survival intelligence — the nervous system choosing the response most likely to keep you alive when fighting or fleeing was impossible.

Your body did what it could.
It got you here.
Forgiving the body is an embodied act.

It happens below thought for example:

  • Place your hand where the old story still lives — throat, belly, chest, jaw…
  • Invite the breath to that place without needing it to change.
  • Say to yourself, softly: ‘You did what you could. You kept me alive’.
  • Allow whatever wants to move — trembling, warmth, tears, a long exhale. This is grief finding its way out through the tissues.
  • Stay until something softens, even slightly. Then stop.

In IFS language, we are thanking the protectors — the parts that braced, numbed and froze — and releasing them from a job they took on far too young. Something unwinds when the body is no longer held as the culprit. Often, that is when the deeper forgiveness becomes possible at all.



An unpopular opinion: forgiveness before justice
I will say it plainly, knowing it may sting. For healing, justice matters less than we think.

Boundaries — yes. Absolutely, fiercely, yes. Protection from people who harm you, and from those who would harm others — yes. 
Courts, accountability, consequences — these belong in a just society, and some of us will rightly spend years fighting for them.

And still. When our healing waits for the other person to admit, apologise, pay, or finally be seen for what they did, we hand them the key to our own recovery. The hunger to be proven right — the Dutch have a good word for wanting to get even, terugpakken — keeps the nervous system in fight mode. It keeps the story alive and the body braced. We stay tied to the one who hurt us, often for decades, or even generations.

Forgiveness asks nothing of them. 
They never have to know, and you never have to let them back in.

A caution, because I have seen forgiveness used as a weapon: it cannot be forced, and it cannot be rushed. Forgiveness that are only words, that skips remembering, feelings and grief is a bypass — and the body will know. In the tradition I turn to next, 
forgiveness only counts when it comes from the heart. 

The order matters. 
  1. Remember. 
  2. Comfort. 
  3. Grieve. 
  4. Then forgive.



Hoʻoponopono — making things right
I want to be careful here, because this is not my tradition. 
What follows is what I am learning from Native Hawaiian elders and authors — above all from my teacher, Kumu Kawika Forster, a 51st-generation teacher from Molokaʻi, and from the teachings of Mary Kawena Pukui, known with love as Tūtū Pukui, recorded in Nānā i ke Kumu (”Look to the Source”) with Dr. E.W. Haertig and Catherine Lee in 1972, and carried forward by the Liliʻuokalani Trust, Aunty Malia Craver, and Aunty Lynette and Uncle Likeke Paglinawan. 

The authors of the third volume are clear: any teaching of hoʻoponopono that is not grounded first in Hawaiian culture, through a Hawaiian practitioner, is misappropriation. 
I honour that. I share this as a student, to point you toward the source.

Hoʻoponopono means, roughly, to set right. 
Traditionally it is a family conference, guided by a respected elder or practitioner — the haku — and held when conflict, illness or unspoken hurt has disturbed the household. 
It came close to disappearing after missionaries branded it heathen; 
Tūtū Pukui spent decades bringing it back.


The stages she described unfold roughly like this:

1. Pule — an opening prayer, asking God and the ancestors to guide everyone present. 
 
2. Kūkulu kumuhana — pooling the family’s strength toward a shared purpose, and naming the problem. Everyone must truly agree to take part. 
 
3. Mahiki — peeling back the layers, like bark from a tree or the skins of an onion, until the real hurt is reached. 
 
4. Hoʻomalu — silence, called by the haku whenever tempers flare or people need to turn inward. 
 
5. Self-scrutiny and discussion — each person looking honestly at their own part, guided by the haku’s questions. 
 
6. Mihi, kala and ʻoki — repenting, forgiving and releasing, and cutting the entanglement loose. 
 
7. Pule hoʻopau — a closing prayer. 
 
8. Pani — sharing food together, in a spirit cleared of grudges.


What strikes me most is how mutual it is. 
In the case story the Paglinawans tell, a young woman’s swollen eye leads her family into hoʻoponopono. The relatives who had been dodging their share of the household work apologise. So do her parents, for not speaking up. And so does she — for letting resentment harden into a grudge. Everyone owns their thread of the knot. Then everyone releases everyone, and the hurt is sent, in Aunty Lynette’s image, into the deep blue ocean, never to rise again.

Truth sits at the centre. The Hawaiian word ʻoiaʻiʻo means the flesh of truth — truth you feel in the naʻau. It must be told fully, and without any wish to wound.

And notice ʻoki. Tūtū Pukui describes how, when a relationship truly could not be restored, a formal and clean break was made. 
Boundaries were never foreign to this tradition. Release can mean reconciliation. It can also mean a clear, held, respectful ending.




The lōkahi triangle, adapted from Kaʻiulani Duponte (2010), 
as presented in Nānā i ke Kumu, Volume III (Liliʻuokalani Trust).



Lōkahi — the triangle of balance
At the heart of the Hawaiian worldview sits lōkahi — unity, harmony, balance. 
It is drawn as a triangle. 
At its peak, Akua and nā ʻaumākua: God, the gods, the ancestral guardians. 
At one corner of its base, kānaka — humankind. 
At the other, ʻāina, moana and lani — land, sea and sky. 
Lōkahi lives in the centre, holding all three in relationship.

On the most isolated inhabited islands on earth, there was nowhere to run from a conflict and no margin for waste. The ancestors replanted what they harvested. They netted only the fish the family needed and shared the catch. When gathering feathers for a coat, they plucked only what was needed and let the bird fly free. Harmony with people, ancestors and land was survival/ living itself.

A person whose naʻau, mind and body are aligned is pono — in right relationship. 
Hurt, grief, stress, or failing to carry one’s part leaves a person out of balance, and that imbalance ripples outward — into the family, toward the ancestors, into the community and the land.

This is why I keep lōkahi. (Fun fact: this is a word I tattood on my arm).

Most Western trauma work tends one corner of the triangle — the individual, sometimes the family. 

Lōkahi reminds us that a wound is also a rupture with the sacred and with the earth, and the mending has to reach there too. A hand in the soil. Salt water. A prayer to those who came before. These are medicine for the other two corners. This is at the heart of Terrapy, the name I gave my ways of working, now you may start to understand more and more why.




Why you won’t find the four phrases here

I am sorry
Please forgive me
Thank you
I love you

If you have searched ‘hoʻoponopono’ online, you have met the four-line mantra — four short phrases of apology, forgiveness, gratitude and love, repeated silently to clean the subconscious. It is everywhere: on YouTube, on Instagram, in self-help courses that promise a ‘frequency reset.’ 
I have chosen to leave it out of this article, and I want to tell you why.

Here is why:
  • It comes from a different lineage. The mantra grew out of a modern, individualised adaptation of hoʻoponopono, developed in the late twentieth century and spread worldwide through Ihaleakala Hew Len and Joe Vitale’s 2007 book Zero Limits. It has its own history. It is a long way from the family practice Tūtū Pukui documented, with its haku, its circle, its prayers and its shared meal.
  • The keepers of the tradition have asked us to stop. The elders writing in Nānā i ke Kumu name teaching of hoʻoponopono cut loose from Hawaiian culture as misappropriation and exploitation. My own kumu, Kawika Forster, is just as clear about this. Tūtū Pukui herself grieved how the practice had come back in fragments and grafted-on inventions. When a people tell us how they want their sacred practice handled, listening is the least we can do.
  • It skips the hard middle. The traditional process asks for truth told in full, layers peeled back, each person owning their part, silence when needed — and only then, release. A mantra repeated alone in your room can leap straight to love and gratitude while the anger and grief are still waiting at the door. Tūtū Pukui warned that without sincerity from the heart, the ritual becomes form without substance.
  • For trauma survivors, it can wound. Asking someone who was harmed to apologise, again and again, for the pain they carry risks folding self-blame back into the very place we are trying to heal. And there is something my kumu taught me that I keep returning to. Once the pōhaku — the stone — has been released, we stop speaking of it. That need not mean it can never be mentioned again. It does warn against reciting the same words over the same wound, day after day — a habit that keeps hauling the stone back up from the deep blue ocean. Mantra japa, the devotional repetition of sacred sound, has its own place and purpose, and I will write about it separately. It is a very different practice, held for a very different reason.

So I offer you the tradition’s essence — truth, mutual accountability, release, restored relationship — and an invitation to learn it from the people who carry it, like kumu Kawika Forster 




Standing where you are
I am not Hawaiian, and I will not teach you hoʻoponopono, my teacher will. 
What it has taught me is that, 
we heal in relationship — with each other, with those who came before us (the ancestors), and with the land that holds us. 
We heal by telling the truth, owning our part, and letting go of what we were never meant to carry forever.

 
Some questions to sit with, slowly, perhaps with a hand on your belly:

Where in my body do I still hold the case against myself?

Whose apology am I still waiting for — and what does the waiting cost me? (Such a common topic in therapy!)

What part of this knot is mine to own?

Which grief have I not yet allowed?

Who, in my life, could hold a circle of truth with me?

What would one small step look like, from exactly here?



And some for the harder middle — truth and kuleana. 
A gentle word first: 
owning your part never means carrying what was done to you. That weight was never yours.

What is the truth I have not yet said out loud — even to myself?

Where have I told the story in a way that keeps me safe from my own part in it?

If my naʻau (gut) could speak, what would it say about this?

What did I do, or leave undone, that added to the hurt?

What would it ask of me to say I’m sorry — and mean it all the way down?

What promise have I broken, to someone else or to myself?

What am I still holding onto because letting go would mean admitting I was part of it?



Go gently. If the old story is heavy, do this work with someone beside you — a therapist, a trusted elder, a circle. Healing was never meant to happen alone.

  1. Remember. 
  2. Find comfort. 
  3. Grieve. 
  4. Forgive — the body first. 

Accept where you stand. 
And then, with whatever courage you have today, move.






Anneke Sips
in, Wisdom of Psychosis