Some twenty-five years ago, I spent two years in Sri Lanka as part of my doctorate programme. I stayed with the in-laws of a former Sri Lankan student at my University in England. Times were hard in those days under the austere economic restrictions of the Bandaranayake administration. As a foreigner, I was not entitled to rationed rice, so our rice had to be bought on the black market, though a petition to the Assistant Food Commissioner did result in our being allowed to buy a daily loaf of bread. Milk was frequently watered down, rice had stones in it, whilst even chilli powder was often mixed with red brick dust (which, I was told, often led to appendicitis) to make up the weight. All these practices were employed, it may be added, not by the needy poor, but by the wealthy Buddhist traders.

However, I digress.

The head of the family--a retired manager of a rubber plantation under the British administration, and long since unemployed--still lived in the belief that he was in charge of everything. Daily would he march onto the verandah and yell out instructions to all around him--to his wife, to his sons, and to the servants. All obeyed instantly, including his wife, who was almost always hidden away in the kitchen, yet all the time knowing that he was helpless without her--indeed, he could not even make a cup of tea by himself. He was, in fact, utterly and totally, dependent upon her. She knew this, but he did not. And I sometimes reflect these days upon what seems to be the rather coarse way in which some modern western feminists DEMAND their rights, compared with the subtle--and infinitely more efficient--way in which my host's wife so successfully achieved much the same result by secretly manipulating her "lord of the manor".

She allowed him to believe that he was in control of the whole situation whereas, in reality, she pulled all--and I mean all--the strings. Which brings me back to Bodhi. He thinks, like the head of the family in Sri Lanka, that he is able to manipulate all about him, including Dharma; whereas, in actual fact, all others, including Dharma, is wise to his self-delusion, but gives him sufficient rein to use this, like the Sri Lankan's wife, to his own advantage. -- Peter Masefield

It would be hard to better the observations of Rabbi Fox on this cartoon (see below). I shall try a different tack!

Experience tells me that pets may control their masters emotionally, but ultimately the master does have control simply because he or she has the ultimate power (physical or technological). What Bodhi and Dharma are doing in the cartoon is exploiting the love and loyalty of the other.

We are not dogs to God's Pavlov. He is faithful. If we enter into a covenant relationship with Him through his Son, Jesus Christ, we become not just his created children but also his adopted children. Christians are not controlled, but seek to imitate Christ. This is not because they will be rewarded with cat-food, but because they love Him. To imitate Christ, of course, means living within a Christ-like ethical framework.

Ultimately, God is in control. "All things work together for good for those who love God" (Romans 8:28). -- Malcolm Prentis.

This is a very subtle cartoon and taxes the brain of Bodhi, Dharma and especially, of the commentator. As ever, Bodhi is well intentioned, perhaps practising mindfulness to achieve his goal of demonstrating superiority to Dharma and yet, still he misreads Dharma's resourcefulness in coping with every situation confronting him.

What is especially interesting about this cartoon is that both characters firmly believe they are outwitting the other. Usually Dharma outsmarts Bodhi, but here the cards seem to be even. What does this mean? Is it simply another expression of Bodhi's naive self-confidence or does he truly believe that humans exist at the centre of the universe as guides and controllers of all other species?

Perhaps we tend to come too easily to the conclusion that we control animals because, pets in particular, are dependent upon us for food. Turning this around, we need to recognise that we ourselves must always be there to feed our pet animals. In that sense they retain a powerful say in where we must be and at what time. Is that not a form of unintended control we could not foresee in our relations with our pets? Control viewed from this perspective is certainly an abstract thing, almost an illusory rationalisation of feeling that one is in a charge of a situation that is ambiguous at best.

For Hindus there are all sorts of controls on behaviour. These are expressed in norms, and the reward for following them is fame and renown in this life, rebirth in heaven. Sanskrit narrative texts called the Puranas are full of tales illustrating absolute adherence to such norms. In addition there are many places in the great Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, where a king is urged to control peoples' behaviour by wielding the staff that is symbolic of his authority. At the most extreme are those passages in the same text speaking of Krishna as the god who ultimately determines all karma, hence all events, and only pretends to allow people to think they are acting in accord with something like free will.

Ultimately though, the doctrine of karma makes available the possibility for humans (and animals) to exercise direction and control over their own destines, but only if they are aware of the workings of karma. A desire to impose one's will upon another has karmic implications of its own, requiring some kind of future, unhappy recompense. Self-control is praised much more than control over others, and in a societal sense, this fits much more easily with cooperation than it does with control.

In the three drawings forming the substance of this cartoon, the only constant is the window. It is drawn as it is seen from within and without, mirroring the respective locations of Dharma and Bodhi. What this indicates to me - and this is noted in David's commentary - is the fallacy in believing oneself ever to be in total control of a situation. There is always another perspective and totalities are only such when perceived from one point of view. Dharma and Bodhi are both in need of instruction here, in the areas of humility as well as wisdom. What is control from one side is manipulation from another. .  -- Dr Greg Bailey

Who controls whom? This is a question which can be answered in many ways, because there are many types and modes of control. One type of control is self-control, which signifies controlling one's tongue, ears, hands, anger, passions and sensual desires etc. Each individual is member of a family unit; so next comes the control of family affairs. Then comes the control of multifarious circles and levels of society at large. Then there is coordination and control done by various authorities in government. Religion also exercises control by providing a set of rules on how to conduct our lives and relate to one-another. Means adopted to control also vary- such as love and affection, persuasion, motivation through identifying and fulfilling the human needs and rewarding the good actions and awarding punishment for evil ones etc. Man continuously tries to explore forces of nature and harness them to his benefit. Though rules are meant to be followed, quite often they are ignored, flouted and violated.

However, there is no denying the fact that every act, however small, must leave behind its effect, influence and impact in one form or another. Two sets of Laws are in operation- Physical Laws

( Laws of Nature) and Spiritual Laws. The Physical Laws pertain to physical and tangible bodies, and are explored by scientists by employing physical faculties. The Spiritual Laws require spiritual faculties to explore; matters like acceptance of prayers, effects of virtuous and evil actions, communion with God and receiving His Revelations and matters pertaining to life after death fall in the domain of Spiritual Laws. Both sets of Laws operate independently in their respective spheres, but also influence each other as body and soul influence each other. The Physical and Spiritual Spheres are like two states under the same Federal Government of Divine Mercy, which pervades both of them, and may interfere in them in mysterious ways to show that God exists and He is the true Master and all matters and their consequences are controlled by God, as He says: "… And to Allah all matters are returned." (2:211 ).   -- Saifullah Khalid

Show me the person who has obligations and I will show you a truly free human being.Show me the person who is totally free (of obligation, loyalty, connection) and I will show you a potential monster. Rabbi Brian Fox.

A PAGAN (WICCAN) PERSPECTIVE
DHARMA THE CAT: EPISODE 9 - "CONTROL"
by Mari Powers
[view the cartoon]

We are often controlled by that which we seek to control. We are often fooled into thinking we could change someone’s behavior while steadfastly ignoring our own. That is the deeper secret in magic and prayer, that intention is all. This is the inner meaning of, “And it harm none”, in the practice of Wicca.

It is important to add that desire to all requests for divine intervention, even in the act of healing or in visualization for the most positive outcome. This is true when we pray for others, and it is equally true when we pray for ourselves.

Bodhi seeks to control Dharma, and he is just lucky that it appears that it harms none. From a spiritual point of view, it would be much better if he were conscious of control issues, and acknowledged Dharma’s will as well as his own. In that way Bodhi would come much closer to the truth of things.

In magic and in prayer, it is important to remember that we are all, each of us, the star at the center of our own universe. When we consciously remember this, then whatever we wish from this place will include the heartfelt desire to harm none. -- Mari Powers