It is only a cry from birth to death, a cry as brief as a moment’s breath, a song that rises in a single note only to sink before it can float. How many of these does he create, the one who makes but never mends, and why continue, it’s fair to ask, when he knows from the start how it all ends?
Is is a fair question and an intriguing one. So let me restate it here:- if we know that life is painful and only ends in death, why bother with it ? This is a huge philosophical question and I’m not going to get involved in matters of belief in a better world beyond this one. But I will say that pain suffering and death are only half the story, and that sometimes even a few moments of joy and love outweigh everything else. I would say in fact that heaven is already in them. Thanks for asking, Paul.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Martin. I agree with what you write but the question is not to us and why we should go on, but why does the one who makes but never mends go on?
Yes. My point was too cryptic. Personal. From a secret equation of mine that posits one isn't possible in the other's absence. i.e., white can't exist without black to contrast with, and so on until we get to life and death... and everything between is what time is
It's the old glass half empty/glass half full. One could count everything that has gone wrong, been a disappointment, heartache, disaster even or one can count the opposites. And maybe even both at the same time?
you know, I was thinking of butterflies. scientifically one of course can explain this completely mind-blowing metamorphosis, to which we are used, which doesn't make it anymore less mind-blowing. Otherwise, my question was- but why? why to bother at all, with any process actually, but as an example-with this one?
I started with trying to understand what Spinoza posited. (why Spinoza, I don't know. They always say "Spinoza's God" maybe because of that).
I understood little, having just started, except there is this concept of neccessity. I thought - how one defines neccessty here, as I for example see only one neccessity- "Let's see how THIS ONE floats".
And indeed,one looks at everything, even standing in one spot, and there's multitudes of "let's see"
As for knowing -may be there is something is any created system, some margin or feature, that allows for deviations precisely so it'll have an agency within an agency, unpredictability within predictability, akin to those kaleidoscopes- there is a number of stones, and they are within a tube and there is a glass with such and such qualities; yet one shakes and each time gets another result. He can't change it completely though, what he can is just to break the kaleidoskope.
Again, I see no neccessity, but desire to create systems - then they continue to change within some parameters, or are left, or are broken, but I guess it's an infinite number of systems and their interaction, interesting enough, and I guess "interest" here is also defined differently.
Poems have this amazing power to compact tomes into lines, (or for the lines unfold unto tomes) ...maybe it's , you know...like writing a kind of a poem?
Thank you, dear Paul. Sorry for the long illegible comment
The asking and the making happen exist simultaneously, and the coexistence dissolves the question’s premise. The cry continues because it precedes the choice to cry. This twist is masterful. Love it, Paul.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this poem, Adrião. Given the truth of the first verse, each person must find purpose in life that is meaningful in their own terms, but what purpose moves the one who created it all? When the end is known, why go on?
This is such a beautiful, and thought provoking poem Paul. I know this will stay with me, as I go through my day. It is a fair question, with possible responses, but no way to know. Living in the moment, seems to be the best way to navigate the unknown.
Hi Paul. I read all the comments. I noticed your remarks that the poem addresses "why the source of all creates in the first place?" I have been greatly influenced by non-dual thinkers, those who reason that only consciousness exits and we are simply individual manifestations of it. If my understanding is correct, the question of why some great existing consciousness manifests in us is to know itself through us. It comes down to pure consciousness asking the question "Who am I?" Through us it finds answers about itself. One writer reasoned that the urge we humans might feel for unity is born of the impulse of our specific manifestation, our life, to rejoin the unity from which we preceded. It can seem a lonely quest on the one hand and have the greatest depth of meaning on the other. Daniel
Given what I would take to be the ineluctable truth of the first verse, the fair question posed in the second verse is directed to the creator, the one who knows how everything will end:
You have opened a new door to understanding: I’m not sure pure consciousness is thought of as all knowing! Believe me, I will be pursuing study of that question! I am left with a hunch: pure consciousness is evolving through what it experiences in our lives and through the existence of everything. It may have the potential for all things but may develop as we do by experiencing and maturing. I will contact my main source and find out how he reasons about this. His reasoning doesn’t prove things but it lets me know how he gets to his ideas. Daniel
Hi Paul, I am realizing that my idea of pure consciousness almost models an evolving being. Whether that squares with non dualism I don’t yet know. And your question is spot on: if evolving, evolving towards what? There is one concept that might be the answer: Bliss. That is the state that the non dual practitioner aims for. But is that the goal of pure consciousness? I have a lot more to learn and questions to answer. This is a humbling and meaningful process. Daniel
Is is a fair question and an intriguing one. So let me restate it here:- if we know that life is painful and only ends in death, why bother with it ? This is a huge philosophical question and I’m not going to get involved in matters of belief in a better world beyond this one. But I will say that pain suffering and death are only half the story, and that sometimes even a few moments of joy and love outweigh everything else. I would say in fact that heaven is already in them. Thanks for asking, Paul.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Martin. I agree with what you write but the question is not to us and why we should go on, but why does the one who makes but never mends go on?
I’ll have to think about that, Paul.. You’re great at asking difficult questions.
So there is no place we need to go, for how would we know joy and love if there were no suffering pain and death(?)
That's my point. You can only truly appreciate life because death gives it it's full meaning.
Yes. My point was too cryptic. Personal. From a secret equation of mine that posits one isn't possible in the other's absence. i.e., white can't exist without black to contrast with, and so on until we get to life and death... and everything between is what time is
It's the old glass half empty/glass half full. One could count everything that has gone wrong, been a disappointment, heartache, disaster even or one can count the opposites. And maybe even both at the same time?
That's right, Martin.
Thanks for the restack, @Kevin Nash
you know, I was thinking of butterflies. scientifically one of course can explain this completely mind-blowing metamorphosis, to which we are used, which doesn't make it anymore less mind-blowing. Otherwise, my question was- but why? why to bother at all, with any process actually, but as an example-with this one?
I started with trying to understand what Spinoza posited. (why Spinoza, I don't know. They always say "Spinoza's God" maybe because of that).
I understood little, having just started, except there is this concept of neccessity. I thought - how one defines neccessty here, as I for example see only one neccessity- "Let's see how THIS ONE floats".
And indeed,one looks at everything, even standing in one spot, and there's multitudes of "let's see"
As for knowing -may be there is something is any created system, some margin or feature, that allows for deviations precisely so it'll have an agency within an agency, unpredictability within predictability, akin to those kaleidoscopes- there is a number of stones, and they are within a tube and there is a glass with such and such qualities; yet one shakes and each time gets another result. He can't change it completely though, what he can is just to break the kaleidoskope.
Again, I see no neccessity, but desire to create systems - then they continue to change within some parameters, or are left, or are broken, but I guess it's an infinite number of systems and their interaction, interesting enough, and I guess "interest" here is also defined differently.
Poems have this amazing power to compact tomes into lines, (or for the lines unfold unto tomes) ...maybe it's , you know...like writing a kind of a poem?
Thank you, dear Paul. Sorry for the long illegible comment
💫💫
The asking and the making happen exist simultaneously, and the coexistence dissolves the question’s premise. The cry continues because it precedes the choice to cry. This twist is masterful. Love it, Paul.
No one is immortal so mending a wound or break is part of living. How will it end he only knows.
I think you’re getting close to the crux of the matter, Paul. The question is not directed to us, but to him. Thank, too, for restacking this poem.
This poem feels like someone quietly admitting how fragile life really is.
The idea of our whole existence being just a brief cry hits harder than it seems at first.
There’s something unsettling about a creator who keeps making but never fixes what breaks.
It feels like the poem is asking the question we all think about on darker days.
The simplicity of the lines makes the weight of the thought land even more deeply.
It’s almost like watching someone look at life and whisper, “Why keep doing this?”
The sense that everything is known from the start adds a soft, sad inevitability.
But the poem doesn’t accuse — it just wonders, honestly and quietly.
It leaves you with that same question sitting in your chest.
And somehow, that honesty makes the poem stay with you.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this poem, Adrião. Given the truth of the first verse, each person must find purpose in life that is meaningful in their own terms, but what purpose moves the one who created it all? When the end is known, why go on?
For the experience; multiple perspectives of the one eternal existence — no end to now. 🙏🌀💖
Great question Paul. I would love to be in the audience when you question the creator. 💛
I’m ready, Holly! Thanks for reading and commenting—I think you are one of the few people recognizing to whom the question is directed.
Perhaps because I have some questions of my own!
Don’t we all!
I’m ready, Holly! Thanks for reading and commenting!
This is such a beautiful, and thought provoking poem Paul. I know this will stay with me, as I go through my day. It is a fair question, with possible responses, but no way to know. Living in the moment, seems to be the best way to navigate the unknown.
Thank you, Sharon.
A keen reflection. Leading to such deep discussions…and I was just about to go out and have a frappe.
I love the start of this, Paul. It really drew me in.
😊🧡
Hi Paul. I read all the comments. I noticed your remarks that the poem addresses "why the source of all creates in the first place?" I have been greatly influenced by non-dual thinkers, those who reason that only consciousness exits and we are simply individual manifestations of it. If my understanding is correct, the question of why some great existing consciousness manifests in us is to know itself through us. It comes down to pure consciousness asking the question "Who am I?" Through us it finds answers about itself. One writer reasoned that the urge we humans might feel for unity is born of the impulse of our specific manifestation, our life, to rejoin the unity from which we preceded. It can seem a lonely quest on the one hand and have the greatest depth of meaning on the other. Daniel
Given what I would take to be the ineluctable truth of the first verse, the fair question posed in the second verse is directed to the creator, the one who knows how everything will end:
why continue?
You have opened a new door to understanding: I’m not sure pure consciousness is thought of as all knowing! Believe me, I will be pursuing study of that question! I am left with a hunch: pure consciousness is evolving through what it experiences in our lives and through the existence of everything. It may have the potential for all things but may develop as we do by experiencing and maturing. I will contact my main source and find out how he reasons about this. His reasoning doesn’t prove things but it lets me know how he gets to his ideas. Daniel
I like the idea of pure consciousness evolving, but to what end?
Hi Paul, I am realizing that my idea of pure consciousness almost models an evolving being. Whether that squares with non dualism I don’t yet know. And your question is spot on: if evolving, evolving towards what? There is one concept that might be the answer: Bliss. That is the state that the non dual practitioner aims for. But is that the goal of pure consciousness? I have a lot more to learn and questions to answer. This is a humbling and meaningful process. Daniel
"Some say the world will end in fire, / Some say in ice"
Thank you, @mitch for this restack
Thank you @Patricia Andrews (WA) for this restack
Thanks and hugs, @mitch, for sharing this poem.