We depart each other, but your image is still in my heart like the obscure illusion of time making my melancholy heart. We say bye-bye hurrily to our respective destination. We have no words, no tears, only eternal missing and blessing resonating in our hearts. I cherish every meeting in life, every warmth in the World and every friend of mine. Even departure, I look it as the happiness for meeting again. Although the vast majority of divorce occur within the first five years of marriage, very few occur immediately. More typically the relationship erodes slowly over a period of time, an insidious process that only gradually leads to the termination of all dialogue. Let us leave our memories in the scent of the flowers…every corner of our campus keeps our friendship and our fantasy. Do you still remember the road with colorful cobble stone? Beautiful flowers and green willows are on both sides of it. On many mornings and at many nights we take a walk here…It is in my memory and your heart with our friendship. We depart silently just as we meet silently at the very beginning. May warm breeze bring you my deep feeling and wishes. While the deterioration can be precipitated by any of a large number of factors, usually the psychological state of anxiety pervades the entire period of the erosion.  

The dialogue becomes a mutual patient, in which a significant degree of growth occurs only when both individuals become aware of their anxieties. Many you in your common position make uncommon contributions until you realize your great ideal! How can the frozen World thaw overnight? May you accumulate more for some creation. May my blessing like melodious movement sound in your heart tenderly. I want to express regards to you: wish you a better life. There is a widespread illusion that “good” dialogue must always be pleasant, that you must make the other person feel good. In its most innocent form, this attitude is reflected in the behavior of adolescents, who always try to “look good” and “act well” around their boyfriends or girlfriends.   The “ugly side” that the adolescent may recognize as part of his personality is revealed only to his parents, mainly because he feels secure that his parents will still love him despite these problems. The “uglier” or “bad” sides are aspects of his personality to others, he would be rejected. Consciously putting your best behavior forward, always looking good, is an essentially adolescent attitude, yet many adults enter marriage with these adolescent attitudes and notions about dialogue. May our hearts be translucent in this translucent World. A splendid expectation appears in our bright eyes. If I am the sun, I wish I hang on the sky every day so that you will be happy no matter which season it is. 

In those poetic days, may warm and sweet feelings were around you.  Flowers ornament garden, butterfly decorates flowers. All of these is for you. May you be the most beautiful flower in the garden.  This human tendency has led many people to believe that trial periods of living together before marriage would be preferable to a lifelong commitment to another individual about whom so little is known. In a sense, this situation seems to support the position of the scientific-love-seekers, who argue that test periods or experiments in living together would help prevent many of the marriages that end so disastrously for the couples and children involved. Considering the enormous pain and trauma of divorce and situations of deteriorated dialogue, any proposal that offers the hope of reducing their prevalence holds great appeal, especially for people who “want to avoid the mistakes their parents made in getting married.” Unfortunately, the problem of making a mistake in a relationship or lifelong commitment with no preconditions cannot be simulated by a test period with such preconditions. This does not mean that marriage relationships ae always necessarily “better” in terms of human dialogue than those of couples who just live together without any formalized commitments. Clearly, many informal relationships develop spectacularly, while over 20 million formalized marriages in the United States of American ended in divorce in 2015 alone. Lustre of jewelry reflects the radiance of blue sky. Beautiful dark green reflects the holy Sun. Hot wind makes me feel the strength of your teachings. Thank you, teacher. 

Like returning from the outdoor piercing windy chill to the indoor warmth by the stove in a wintry night. My teacher, your concern for me is like the warmth from the burning charcoal. How can I abstain from expressing my gratitude for you? What is medically important is the way we live together—the dialogue. The very idea that there are no cookbook rules for human dialogue precludes the establishment of an ideal objective condition in which human dialogue can flourish. The issues boil down to one of premises about human relationships and what it is about their context that allows dialogue to develop. The only major preconditions for dialogue is trust. If trust exists between two people, then dialogue will naturally develop. We emphasized the fundamental nature of trust when I stated that the requirement to establish nonverbal dialogue, the requirement to pursue understanding without words, exists in all of us. This pursuit I traced back to the relationship a child establishes with his father, it is one of absolute trust, unimpeded by language. As we mature, language becomes part of our repertoire, but the essential cores of all dialogue—as was poignantly observed in the coronary care unit—remains nonverbal character. 

Trust between two people is gradually emerging process that involves ever greater degrees of commitment. When I fly, embracing the sky with forceful position and ardent hands, I will embrace you, my dear teacher. All dialogue involves commitment to a contract that is both implicitly understood and explicitly documented. Regardless of whether the contract is until death do us part or for a two-year trial period—Let us live together and see what happens or let us be friends—both the explicit and implicit aspects of the contract modulate the level of trust and consequently the nature of the dialogue. A lifelong commitment to another person, while no guarantee that dialogue will flourish, at least provides the framework in which trust can grow.  Since the commitment is more total than that of a mere trial period, each individual is psychologically free to make mistakes and still feel assured that the dialogue will not be lost, but if you cheat, then a financial payment of 50 percent of your assets are due to pay your spouse, and it is their choice to void the contract and no longer spend time with you, nor communicate. In addition to degree of commitment, predictability is one of the core aspects of the growth in trust. If either person becomes unpredictable in areas of behavior crucial to the other person, then trust is placed in jeopardy. This can happen if both components of the contract, the implicit commitments and the explicit commitments, are not adhere to.

Generally, in human relationships it is the violation of implicit commitments that leads to a deterioration of dialogue.  It is often mistakenly assumed in human relationships that the contracts made with other people are completely explicit. This is perhaps the central error of the scientific-love-seekers, who assume that in trail periods of living together all the commitments that people make to each other can be spelled out in a totally rational manner. However, as any lawyer, physician, psychiatrist, or psychologist realizes, even in the most clear-cut types of human interactions, there are implicit commitments struck between the consenting parties which the parties themselves may not even be aware of. The fact is that even in the most explicit dialogue there are still many hidden assumptions. Marriage is without doubt the single most important contract involving the greatest number of implicit commitments. In marriage the commitment to dialogue is generally regarded as total—for better or for worse—and for life. While the explicit commitment is indeed total, there are also a host of implicit assumptions that give marriage its special meaning. These commitments are modulated by trust, which grows as the dialogue grows. Trust sets the tone for all marital dialogue—trust in yourself as well as trust in the other person. On the level of love, we are heartfelt, generous, nurturing, affectionate, steadfast, and forgiving. Love is protective, collaborative, uplifting, holistic, and gracious. It is characterized by warmth, gratitude, appreciation, humility, completion, vision, purity of motive, and sweetness. Love is a way of being. It is the energy that radiates when the blocks to it have been surrendered. It is more than an emotion or a thought—it is a state of being.

Love is what we have become through the pathway of surrender. It is a way of being in the World that says: How can I be of help to you? How can I comfort? How can I loan you money when you are suffering financial hardship? How can I help you find a job? How can I console you when you have suffered a major loss in your family? Ryan, thank you for (your) tolerance and encouragement. When I was perplexed in mistakes, it was you who awoke my lost heart with your kind and affectionate smile. Lovingness is a way through which we light up the World. The question is frequently raised about extramarital sexual affairs: What is wrong with open sex in marriage, what is wrong with one simple interlude, one little affair of intercourse with someone other than a marital partner? Setting aside any discussion of dialogue involves the promise to be sexually faithful to one another, then intercourse with another person is a breach of those commitments. After the breach a person is left with several choices. One strategy is to cover up the violation. This strategy may even be buttressed by the unfaithful partner’s feeling that the mate would not be found out. The only problem with this strategy is that I would not understand, or better yet, that I would be hurt when I found out. The only problem with this strategy is that the commitment to total trust and complete predictability is shattered, and from here on out you are forced to live with a secret and lies that must be kept. With remarkable frequency, this strategy does not work, in spite of all the best efforts to conceal the episode, for the entire matter is communicated nonverbally. Not infrequently the act of infidelity is quickly found out by me, who, rather than challenge the integrity of our marriage, keeps all suspicious inside. This comes kind of a tragic game—if you will not tell me, I will not ask, but I saw you with that bitch at the hotel—and the victim is the dialogue.

Given these new commitments to mutual deception, a kind of pact of ignorance, the dialogue deteriorates. What I cannot forget is your love, when I was in low spirits, it is you that pushed off the black clouds overhead and brought me limitless promise. Thank you. An alternative strategy is to “confess” and own up to the act of infidelity. This strategy is also fraught with emotional difficulties even if I quickly forgive the act, rejecting you might me a response. I am injured and might consciously or, even worse, unconsciously recognize that your total commitments are not in fact total, an idea that will prompt a reciprocal withdrawal from total commitment. An insidious and vague type of distrust begins to grow between us as a couple. Whether I grow into a towering white poplar or remain strong grass, I will offer to you my deep respect with the greenness of my life.  A third option is to use the episode constructively, perhaps to help put us in touch with the requirements that we did not realize existed, perhaps to know ourselves better and move on to more intimate levels of dialogue. This is an option, but it is the one least likely to happen, since it demands the greatest degree of emotion stability and maturity from both partners. Parting is the beginning of a gradually diluted remembrance, but your image seemingly like a glittering point always twinkles in my heart. It is you who opened the window of my thought. It is you who melt the frost in the bottom of my heart. Ryan, you make me see the wide World and appreciate the Spring scenery. Life is a road without ends. I walk and walk on. When I am tired, your steadfast face, unswerving voice, tough and tensile spirit come to me from my memory.  

Everything seems the same, the faces, the clothes. Your familiar writings and voice drive us to come back in our happy days. However, extramarital sexual affairs involve issues that go to the very heart of human dialogue. The casual manner in which such issues are discussed in the press and popular books suggest that the nature of dialogue is not particularly well understood. Extramarital affairs involve highly volatile emotional issues that cannot be brushed aside lightly or dismissed by logical arguments. You hurt me more than you can ever understand. Everyone has the opportunity to contribute to the beauty and harmony of the World by showing kindness to all living things, and, thereby, supporting the human spirit.  Whatever which we freely give to life flows back to us because we are equally part of that life. Like ripples on the water, every gift returns to the giver. What we affirm in others, we actually affirm in ourselves. Once we become willing to give love, the discovery quickly follows that we are surrounded by love and merely did not know how to access it. Love is actually present everywhere; its presence only is required to be realized. Rose spouses in Spring, and without Sunshine, how can it have charming and delicate splendor? Oh, Ryan, your teachings are more than the warm Sunshine of the Spring. I am your Albatross, we are caught up in a White Squall, we must act as one to Save Gil Martin. It is you who encourage me to sail forward, I sing the song you taught me, moving bravely toward sea.  Once we become willing to give love, the discovery quickly follows that we are surrounded by White Squall of love and merely did not know how to access it. I will never forget tour love. As a little boy blue, I memorize a ditty taught to me by you, my father, and I am still able to say it eighty years later. The Navy sailor called Gil Martin steers his ship, the Albatross, through a terrible White Squall for three days. Nonstop without food and drink, when all of your shipmate were seasick.  You were also a doctor and loved and prayed for every patient without their knowing about it. And you cleared up the pissy pants of a young child saying: Honey it is not your fault; you could not help it. I used to make your koffee every morning how you liked it. And the birds wait in their cage and sing until you return.  Good men every interpret themselves too meanly. You was a good man, and did good things.