“Appreciation slips away with the merging of our spirits and the light we ARE glows brighter”….the stress on ARE is so meaningful here since, in the absence of the observer and the experiencer merged with the experienced, leaves just this ARE, the ever glowing presence, the beauty of this ONENESS. “You never saw me when I was you I never saw you when you were me”… yes, not in those moments of ONENESS. The realization of the beauty is always experienced in retrospect. But if, who is who is identifiable, then there is a separation, a duality subject to moods, subject to individual conditioning, subject to interpretation. “as the beauty we WERE”….again the emphasis on WERE stresses the point that the beauty of BEING, the beauty of ONENESS can only be verbalized in retrospect. Realization in this sense is always in retrospect and not “when within was without”, when the observer and the observed were ONE. “To BE this poem To BE this love To BE this life Is not to be the beholder”… The stress is again on the BEING, and I wish to add that BEING is not one of the selves, not even, when one is present because when the self is present associated and identifying with the BEING, the observer is separate from the observed. So, what exists is the observer and his conditioned observation, a verbalized poem, the observer and his concept of life, happy or unhappy, the experience of the love, as he means it and believes as love and not just the POEM, ONE with the POET and the ever PRESENT BEING, ever ALIVE, the lovers merged in LOVE within, without, within merged with the without so much so, that there’s neither a within nor a without, so much so, that WHAT IS is LOVE and no lovers observing and appreciating or verbalizing LOVE. Appreciation shall follow later. In retrospect. Yes, the “observation is a mark of death and BEING, the end of sole appreciation”…when there’s no WHO, there’s just a BEING in NONBEING rather a NONBEING in NONBEING, in a sense. People all through ages have spoken of this basic premise of the Tao and Zen, but how many of them have really realized “Appreciation slips away with the merging of our spirits “. Yes, the beauty is beyond appreciation, beyond interpretation and verbalization of this conditioned, subjective mind. You have elaborated this realization in your author’s note, rightly saying that ‘one cannot possibly ‘live his life’ and appreciate’. The inclusion of life with living is again so meaningful here ( because then you are talking in terms of different levels of BEING and I have seen, been and realized various levels, in the presence of ‘I’s’ and in the absence, in pure beauty). Appreciation always follows and if it is appreciation which is predominant then one lacks this beauty of BEING and ONENESS. Appreciation is the verbalization of the beauty and not in the moments of beauty, intellectually or emotionally or what ever. The moments of beauty and the moments of appreciation has to be different, one killing the other. Mike has answered himself, stressing this very same point, though contradicting the same, at the same time-‘In the knowing of the past (not living it) can we not have some appreciation of the moment”…yes not living it. One cannot appreciate living while living. Needless to say, one will have to forego LIVING when appreciating. The choice is yours (not in real sense. HAHAHAHAAH) If BEING is a state of ONENESS, omnipresent, then you have a clarity. The clarity of perception and as such, you are an observer with complete understanding of the absence because it is what is and not you. But you realize this only when these moments of clarity, these moments of perception, these moments of ILHAM turns into past. Where is the appreciation in the absence of the observer? Let’s say, there’s a pain and there’s an observer. The pain persists so far the pain is separate from the observer; so far there is this duality. But what if the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the pain merges, becomes ONE so much that the observer is the pain, now where’s the observer? And where’s the pain in the absence of the observer? And in the absence of the observer there’s no pain to appreciate. (Hahahaha) Well, we ought to differentiate between a self (creation of a suggestion) and BEING. A self, one with the BEING, is an observing self. A BEING in the absence of a self is just a BEING, not observing but omnipresent. Using your words-“If you ARE (in BEING) that very experience, then you cannot possibly be ONLY an observer since you are not separate from the experience” YES, you are the BEAUTY, when ONE. Pure BEAUTY beyond appreciation. Appreciation is too small a reaction as against this experience of the nonexperience of the BEAUTY. Yes, BEING is BEAUTY, LIFE in the real sense and this can only be experienced in the absence of the presence. I would like to sum up my comment with this beautiful Zen piece-‘ When light seeks out darkness,/the only finding is understanding that what has been ‘found’/was the absence of that which was seeking./ All that a seeker can find is his own absence,/for this which is seeking is all there could have been to be found. /Asking-Who am I?, therefore, is the light/ searching for the darkness of a ‘me’,/and finding that there is no ‘Who?’but only the absence of the presence of this-which-is-asking. Note: Why does light seek out darkness? Because there is nothing else in the cosmos which it has not found.” Well, I just can’t resist adding another beautiful stanza from a Zen poem: ‘At first a Yogi feels his mind/ is tumbling like a waterfall; in mid-course, like the Ganges, it flows on slow and gentle; in the end it is a great vast ocean/ where the lights of son and mother merge in one.’ Rula shin, this piece of yours is a perfect verbalization of a beautiful realization. I appreciate. But all said and done, this BEAUTY is beyond appreciation.

A little too hard on my head Rula. As a friend, I'd like to see you go back to a simpler, earlier style of writing as opposed to the Ashokian style you seem to have adopted in the past few months.

I can sense the initiation of a tangential excursion into the relationship between memory and experience, then on to the nature of what is 'real', as opposed to what we understand as 'reality'. Thank you for reminding me of the places I like to visit when my mind is disengaged from the pleasures of experiencing appreciation, and the pains of appreciating experience...seeing is believing, but not being - hmm

This is so so true........

you have this most positive habit of jabbing your acuteness of spirit into the origin of expression to spring forth beautiful words that mystify the soul.

...rula, what was it about?...after i read astok's remarks, my mind was un, then it was non, then oiu, then sic, then oops, then anyway, was it a good poem?...probably was since you write good...peace, chaz

Rula, this is so thought-provoking. The sense I get is two people starting from opposite directions, thinking of their differences. Yet, in your explanation, I see some of Immanuel Kant's philosophy, that appreciation of beauty requires a disinterestedness, where subjectivity and objectivity must be considered. Good work and an enjoyable read.
~Chelle~

If there were a mind tax, I’d be bankrupt, Rula. I read this several times and I’m not sure I can process all this at one time. What I can comprehend definitely makes a positive statement. Suffice it to say you certainly covered the coastline with this transformational piece. pe4ce...

this poem is beautiful on many different levels, it's simple enough for even minds as dull as my own to find a meaning, one in which hits very close to home for me, and it is well beyond deep in that it is wide as well. there are so many ways it could be broken down and discussed, but i'll sit with a simpler meaning for myself. just beautiful!