Living in present
Thank you, I had opportunity to release fine lecture of
Jiddu Krishnamurthy whose books ,many may not like, but I do think about.
In that period of time, whether it be 50 years or 90 years or hundred
years, we go through all kinds of problems and difficulties. You have
problems - economic, social, religious; problems of personal relationship,
problems of individual fulfilment, wanting to find one's roots in some
place or other. And we have innumerable psychological wounds, fears,
pleasures, sensations. And also there is a great deal of fear in all human
beings; great deal of anxiety, uncertainty, and the pursuit of pleasure.
And also all human beings on this beautiful earth suffer a great deal of
pain, loneliness. We are going to talk about all that together. And what
place has religion in modern life? And also we are going to talk over
together the question of death; what is a religious mind; and what is
meditation; and if there is anything that is beyond all thought, there is
anything sacred in life, or everything is matter and therefore we lead a
materialistic life.
The society in which we live is put together by man, whether it be
economic, social, the rich and the poor, and so on. The society in which we
live. Each one of us has contributed to it. And if you are willing, and
apparently you must be willing because you are here and I am here, to take
this long, complex journey - because life is very complex. And we like to
look at complexity and get more and more complex. But we never look at
anything simply with our brains, with our heart, with our whole being. So
let us take the journey together. The speaker may be voicing, putting into
words what is happening: objectively, clearly, and totally dispassionately.
Mankind has lived on this earth perhaps for a million or 50,000 years. We
have lived on this earth for many, many millennia. And during those periods
of long-time mankind has suffered pleasure, loneliness, despair,
uncertainty, confusion, multiple choices, therefore multiple complexities;
and there have been wars. Not only physical, bloody wars but also
psychological wars. And mankind has asked if there can be peace on earth -
pacem in terris - the Latin of peace on earth. And apparently this has not
been possible. There are about 40 wars going on at the present time both
ideological, theoretical, economic, social. And during the historical
times, perhaps about 5,000 to 6,000 years, there have been wars practically
every year. And how can we have peace on earth? Is that at all possible?
And those who have concern have said, there is no peace on earth, only in
heaven. And all this is repeated different ways, both in the East, in
India, and here. Christians have killed more than anybody else on earth. So
we are observing, not taking sides - these are facts, actualities. And
there are these religions: Christianity, Islamic world, the
Fundamentalists. And Hinduism and Buddhism. And the various sects within
organised Christianity, and also in India and Asia; they believe in the
Buddha - in Buddhism there is no god. In Hinduism somebody calculated there
are about 300,000 gods. That's rather fun, you can choose whichever god you
like. And in Christianity and Islam there is only one god, based on two
books, the Bible and the Koran. So religions have divided man. As
nationalism, which is a form of glorified tribalism, has divided man.
Nationalism, patriotism, religious ardour, the fundamentalists both in
India, here and in Europe, going back, reviving their religious tradition.
And man has always been in conflict, as everyone in this world goes through
all kinds of misery, all kinds of sorrow, pain, desperate loneliness. And
we want to escape from all this. But we are going to look together, observe
this extraordinary phenomena: what man has made after these thousands of
years. He still remains a barbarian: cruel, vulgar, full of anxiety and
hatred. And violence is increasing in the world. And so one asks, can there
be peace on this earth? Because without peace, inwardly, psychologically
first, the brain cannot flower. Human beings cannot live completely
holistically.
So why are we, after this long evolution - during that period we have
gathered immense experience, knowledge, great deal of information - why are
we as human beings perpetually in conflict? That is the real question.
Because when there is no conflict there is naturally peace. And man - that
includes the woman, please, when I use the word 'man' I am not shutting out
the woman. Don't get excited about it. (laughter) Nor, if one may point
out, don't get angry, irritated, with what we are investigating together.
It's your responsibility to enquire, not merely intellectually, verbally,
but with your heart, with your brain, with all your being. And find out why
we are what we are. We have tried various religions, various economic
systems, social differences, and yet we live in conflict. Can this conflict
in each one of us end? Completely, not partially, not occasionally. It's a
very serious question. It demands a serious answer. Not, 'it's possible or
not possible', but to enquire into it very deeply, why human beings,
including you, the speaker perhaps, live in perpetual conflict, problems,
divisions. Why we have divided the world into nationalities, religious
groups, social behaviour and all the rest of it. Can we seriously this
afternoon enquire whether it's possible to end conflict. First
psychologically, inwardly, because if there is a certain quality of freedom
inwardly, then we shall produce a society in which there will be no
conflict. So it's our responsibility as human beings, as so-called
individualities, that we seriously put our brains, our energy, our passion
into discovering for ourselves, not according to any philosopher, not
according to some psychiatrist and so on, but to enquire, observe, find out
for oneself whether this conflict between two human beings, whether they be
intimate or not, whether it could end.
What is conflict? Why have we lived with conflict? Why have we problems?
What is a problem? Please enquire with the speaker into this question: what
is a problem? The etymological meaning of that word means 'something thrown
at you'. A problem is a challenge, something you have to answer. But if you
begin to enquire into the whole nature of a problem, whether it's most
intimate or a world problem - as we said, the meaning of that word
etymologically, means something propelled, something thrown at you. I
wonder if we have noticed from this question of problems, when you are a
child, you are sent to school. There you have the problem of writing,
problem of mathematics, problem of history, science, chemistry, and all the
rest of it. So from childhood we are trained to have problems. Please have
patience. Look at it carefully. So our brain is conditioned, trained,
educated to have problems. Observe it for yourself. And don't, please,
merely listen to the speaker. We are together investigating, looking into
the problems that you have. So from childhood we are trained, educated,
conditioned to have problems. And when new problems arise, which they
inevitably do, our brain, being full of problems, tries to solve another
problem and thereby increase more problems; which is what is happening in
the world. The politicians all over the world are increasing, problem after
problem. And they have found no answer. So is it possible - please listen
if you will - is it possible to have a brain that is free from problems so
that you can solve problems. Not a cluttered brain full of problems. Is
that possible? And also - if you say it is not possible or it is possible,
you have stopped investigating. What is important in this enquiry is that
one must have a great deal of doubt, scepticism. Never accepting anything
at its face value or according to your pleasure or gratification. Life is
much too serious.
So we must go back and find out for ourselves why human beings have
reduced the world to what it is now. What is the cause of all this? Why
have we made such a mess of everything we touch, both in our personal
relationship, between man and woman, between each other; why there is
conflict between gods: your god and the other's god. So we must enquire
together whether it is possible to end conflict. Otherwise we'll never have
peace in this world.
Where there is duality, separation, as the Greek and the Muslim,
as the Jew and the Arab, as the Christian who believes in some saviour and
the Hindu who doesn't believe in all this, there is this division: national
division, religious division, individual divisions, where there is division
there must be conflict. That's a law. So we live our daily life in a little
circumscribed self, the limited self. Not that there is higher self, the
limited - self is always limited; and that's the cause of conflict. That's
the central core of our struggle, pain, anxiety, and all the rest of it.
If one becomes aware of it, as most people must, naturally, not
because you're told to or because you read some philosophical book or
psychology, but it's an actual fact. Each one is concerned with himself. He
lives in a separate world all to himself. And therefore there is division
between you and another, between you and your religion, between you and
your god, between you and your ideologies. So is it possible to understand
- not intellectually but deeply, that you are the rest of mankind. Whatever
you do, good or bad, affects the rest of mankind, because you are the
mankind.
Your consciousness is not yours. Your consciousness is its
content; consciousness is made up of its content. Without the content there
is no consciousness. Your consciousness, like the rest of humanity, is made
up of beliefs, fears, faith, gods, personal ambitions and all the rest of
fears and all that. Your whole consciousness is made up of all this, put
together by thought. One hopes that we have taken the journey together.
Together we are walking the same road, not that you are listening to a
series of ideas. We are not pursuing ideas or ideologies, but facing
actuality. Because in actuality and going beyond that actuality is the
truth. And when you discover, when there is truth, it's the most dangerous
thing. Truth is very dangerous because it brings a revolution in oneself.
They talk a great deal about beauty in the magazines: how you must be
beautiful - your face, your hair, your complexion and all the rest of it.
So what is beauty? Is beauty in the picture, in the painting, in the
strange modern structure? Is beauty in a poem? Is beauty in merely the
physical face and body? Have you ever asked this question? If you are an
artist or a poet or a literary person, you may describe something very
beautiful, paint something that's lovely, a poem that really stirs your
very being. So what is beauty? Because freedom means - etymologically the
word 'freedom' implies, in that word 'freedom' there is love. The word
'freedom', in that word there is the etymological meaning also which is
love. What is the relationship between love and beauty? When we talk about
love, perhaps later on, what is beauty? Is it in the eye of the beholder?
So beauty is when the self is not. And that requires great meditation,
great enquiry, a tremendous sense of discipline. The word 'discipline'
means the one disciple who is learning from the master. Learning, not
disciplining, conforming, imitating, adjusting - learning. Learning brings
its own tremendous discipline, and that inward sense of austerity,
discipline is necessary. So we must enquire together into what is fear.
What is the time, sir? May we go on? You aren't tired?
What is fear? Again, humanity has put up with fear. Has never been able
to solve fear. Never. There are various forms of fears; you may have your
own particular form of fear: fear of death, fear of gods, fear of your
wife, fear of your husband, fear of the politicians, god knows how many
fears humanity has, the devil, and so on. What is fear? Not the mere
experience of fear in its multiple forms, but actually, the reality, the
actuality of fear. How is it brought about? Why has man, woman, why has
humanity and each one accepted fear as the way of life, as you accept
violence as the way of life: violence in the television, violence of war,
violence of your daily life. Why do we accept violence? The ultimate
violence is to go into organised killing, which is called war. Is not fear
related to violence? So in inquiring into fear, the actual truth of fear,
not the idea of fear - you understand the difference? The idea of fear is
different from the actuality of fear - right? Right. So what is fear? How
has it come about?
What is the relationship of fear to time, to thought? Fear - one
may be frightened of tomorrow, or many tomorrows; fear of death, the
ultimate fear; fear of what has happened before, in the past; fear of what
is actually going on now. So we must enquire together - please, the speaker
keeps on repeating, together; otherwise it's no fun talking to myself. Is
fear brought about by time? Someone has done something in the past, hurt
you, and the past is time. The future is time. The present is time. So we
are asking, is time a central factor of fear? Fear has many many branches,
many leaves, but it's no good trimming the branches. We are asking, what is
the root of fear? Not the multiple forms of fear, because fear is fear. Out
of fear you have invented gods, saviours. If you have absolutely no fear
psychologically, then there is tremendous relief, a great sense of freedom.
You have dropped all the burdens of life. So we must enquire very
seriously, closely, hesitantly, into this question: is time a factor?
Obviously. Have a good job now, I may lose it tomorrow, I'm frightened. And
I may be married, I am frightened. When there is fear there is jealousy,
anxiety, hatred, violence. So time is a factor of fear. Please listen to
the very end of it, don't say, how am I to stop time, that's not the
problem. That's a rather absurd question to ask.
Time is a factor and thought is a factor: thinking about what has happened,
what might happen - thinking. Is thinking a factor in fear? Has thinking
brought about fear? As one sees time has brought fear, right? Time. Not
only time by the clock, but psychological time, the inward time: I am going
to be; I am not good, but I will be. I will get rid of my violence, which
is again the future. Or, I have been violent, but I won't be. All that
implies time.
We ought to enquire, what is time? Are you prepared for all this? Do you
want to go into all this? Really? I'm rather surprised. (laughter) Because
you've all been instructed, you've all been informed, you've been told what
to do by the psychologists, by the priests, by your leaders: always seeking
help and finding new ways of being helped. So one has become a slave to
others. We are never free to enquire, to stand psychologically completely
by oneself.
So we are going now to enquire into time. What is time? Apart from the
clock, apart from a sunrise and a sunset, the beauty of the sunrise, the
beauty of the sunset, apart from the light and the dark, what is time?
Please, if one really understands this, the nature of time inwardly, you
will find for yourself an extraordinary sense of having no time at all.
We'll come to that.
Time is the past, right? Time is the future, and time is the present. The
whole cycle is time. The past - your background, what you have thought,
what you have lived through, your experiences, your conditioning, as
Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, all the rest of it - or you put aside all that
nonsense and say, I'm going to live this way, which is the past. So the
past is the present, right? Without the past you wouldn't be here: your
background, your conditioning, your brain being programmed as a Christian,
Hindu, Buddhist, and all the rest of it. We have been programmed for two
thousand years and the Hindus for three to five thousand years. Like a
computer, they repeat, repeat, repeat. So the past is the present; what you
are now is the result of the past. And tomorrow, or a thousand tomorrows,
is the future. So the future is what you are now. Right? You have
understood? I mustn't ask you that - doesn't matter, it's up to you.
So the future is now. In the now all time is contained. This is a fact too,
actuality, not a theory. What you are is the result of the past and what
you will be tomorrow is what you are now. If I am violent now tomorrow I'll
be violent.
So tomorrow is in the now, in the present, unless I radically,
fundamentally bring about a mutation. Otherwise I'll be what I have been.
That is, we have had a long evolution, evolving, evolving, evolving. And we
have evolved to what we are now. And if you carry on that game you will be
violent, you will be barbarous next day. So, as all time is contained in
the now - which is a fact, actuality - can there be total mutation now in
all our behaviour and our way of living, thinking, feeling? Not being an
American, Hindu, Buddhist, none of that. Because if you don't radically,
psychologically bring about a mutation then you will be exactly what you
have been in the past. So is it possible to bring about this psychological
mutation at all?
So what is thinking? You understand my question? If time and thought
are the root of fear - which they are in actuality - what is thinking? Why
do we live, act, do everything, on the basis of thought? The marvellous
cathedrals of Europe, the beauty, the structure, the architecture: it has
been put together by thought. All religions and their paraphernalia, their
dress, all the medieval robes, are put together by thought. All the rituals
are connived, arranged, by thought. And in our relationship with each
other, man, woman, the relationship is based on thought. When you drive a
car, it's based on thought. Recognition, all that, is thought. So one has
to enquire, if you are not too tired - and we'll stop at the end after this
- what is thinking? Probably nobody has asked this question. Very few
people do. We have been asking this question for sixty years. What is
thought? Because if you can find out what is the origin, the beginning, why
thought has become so extraordinarily important in our life, there may be
in that very enquiry a mutation taking place. So we are asking what is
thought, what is thinking? Don't wait for me to answer it. Look at it,
observe it.
Thinking is the word; word is important, the sound of the word, the
quality of the word; the depth, the beauty of a word. Especially the sound.
I won't go into the question of sound and silence, we'll talk about it
perhaps tomorrow. Thinking is part of memory, isn't it? Investigate it with
the speaker, please, don't sit there comfortably, or uncomfortably.
Thinking is part of memory, isn't it? If you had no memory at all, would
you be able to think? You wouldn't. Our brain is the instrument of memory:
memory of things that have happened, experience, and so on, the whole
background of memory. Memory arises from knowledge, from experience, right?
So experience, knowledge, memory, and the response of memory is thought.
This whole process of experiencing, recollecting, holding, which becomes
our knowledge. Experience is always limited, naturally. Because - it's a
complicated question, because - oh, gosh, everything is complicated.
(laughter)
Is experience different from the experiencer? Give your brains to this,
find out. If there is no experiencer, is there an experience? Of course
not. So the experience and the experiencer are the same. (laughs) Like the
observer and the observed, the thinker is not separate from his thoughts.
The thinker is the thought.
So experience is limited, as you can observe in the scientific world or any
other field. They are adding more and more and more every day to their
knowledge through experience, through experiment on animals and all that
horror that is going on. And that knowledge is limited because they are
adding to it. So memory is limited. And from that memory thought is
limited. So thought, being limited, must invariably bring about conflict.
Just see the pattern of it. Not accept what the speaker is saying, that's
absurd. He's not an authority, he's not a guru, thank god. But if we can
observe this fact together, that thought and time are the root of fear.
Time and thought are the same, they are not two separate movements. When
you see this fact, this actuality, that time and thought are the root of
fear, time thought - just to observe it in yourself, not move away from the
reality of it, from the truth of it, that fear is caused by this, time and
thought; to hold it, to remain with it, not run away from it, not
rationalise, it is so. And then it's like holding a precious jewel in your
hand. You see all the beauty of that jewel. Then you will see for yourself
that fear psychologically completely ends. And when there is no fear you
are free. And when there is that total freedom you don't have gods,
rituals, you are a free man. We'll continue tomorrow if you don't mind.
(Applause)
K Rajaram IRS 28725
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 at 05:56, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar**Mechanization and Absence from the Present*
>
> *‘Living in the present’, can actually be experienced, when one goes into
> a thick forest brimming with flora and fauna, the sounds of the music of
> nature, soft breezes one’s entire being. Then subject and object fuse, verb
> becomes bliss, adjectives and adverbs fail in adequacy, one feels heaven as
> life.*
>
> *Thanks to economic progress or destruction of ecology (they are
> synonyms),the colours of nature are substituted by poisonous paints, huge
> concrete structures substitute forests, unending vehicles substitute the
> ecosphere---present has become absent. Life has become only introspection
> of selectively remembering the pleasant memories. One continuously needs to
> remember one’s University degrees, big positions held, to make the living
> divorce from nature tolerable. But self acceptance and self esteem and the
> pride of existence needs the feeling as a composition of nature, and not
> the spectatorship or scrutinizer of nature as an economic resource.*
>
> *Is it necessary from the LKG onwards to mechanize conceptualization
> itself? Mechanization today, is actually extinction in operation. Machines
> are making limbs redundant. That redundancy is presented as a comfort or
> luxury.*
>
> *Theo—the voice of God or nature, is muted by Scio, the urge to
> analyze,define,dissect,separate,categorize,quantify---all that separates
> one from nature.*
>
> *“Up to now we have been looking at matter as such, that is to say
> according to its qualities and in any given volume—as though it were
> permissible for us to break off a fragment and study this sample apart from
> the rest. It is time to point out that this procedure is merely an
> intellectual dodge. Considered in its physical, concrete reality...the
> universe cannot divide itself but, as a kind of gigantic ‘atom’, it forms
> in its totality...the only real indivisible...The farther and more deeply
> we penetrate into matter, by means of increasingly powerful methods, the
> more we are confounded by the inter-dependence of its parts. Each element
> of the cosmos is positively woven from all the others...It is impossible to
> cut into this network, to isolate a portion without it becoming frayed and
> unravelled at all its edges. All around us, as far as the eye can see, the
> Universe holds together, and only one way of considering it is really
> possible, that is, to take it as a whole, in one piece.”(Teilhard de
> Chardin,quoted in The Spectrum of Consciousness by Ken Wilber page 39).*
>
> *YM Sarma*
>
> *Chat gpt*
>
> This deeply reflective and poetic piece by YM Sarma explores a profound
> tension between *mechanization* and *presence*, between *technological
> progress* and *ecological belonging*, and between *fragmentation* and
> *wholeness*. Here's an interpretive analysis that might help unpack its
> key ideas:
> ------------------------------
>
> *🔧 Mechanization vs. Presence*
>
> The opening lines romanticize the *experience of presence*—a deep
> immersion in nature where the boundary between the self and the world
> dissolves. This state is contrasted with modern life, where:
>
> - Mechanization leads to disconnection from the immediate experience
> of life.
> - The *now* is replaced by recollections of achievements, as if life
> has become a museum of personal credentials rather than a living process.
>
> Sarma argues that mechanization doesn't just change how we live—it
> *replaces* life with abstraction and removes us from our organic,
> interdependent context.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🌍 Nature as Self, Not Spectacle*
>
> A powerful line stands out:
>
> "Self-acceptance and self-esteem and the pride of existence needs the
> feeling as a composition of nature..."
>
> This asserts that self-worth isn’t found in external achievements or
> social validation, but in *recognizing oneself as a part of the natural
> whole*. In contrast, treating nature as a resource (to be dissected,
> categorized, and used) divorces us from that grounding.
> ------------------------------
>
> *⚙️ Mechanization of the Mind*
>
> Sarma provocatively asks:
>
> "Is it necessary from the LKG onwards to mechanize conceptualization
> itself?"
>
> This is a critique of modern education. From the earliest stages (LKG =
> Lower Kindergarten), children are taught to abstract, define, and dissect
> reality—essentially trained in *mechanized thinking*. This alienates them
> from holistic experience and from embodied, intuitive knowing.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🧠 Theo vs. Scio: The Battle of Knowing*
>
> This section is especially symbolic:
>
> - *Theo* (Greek: *God or divine nature*) symbolizes intuitive, sacred,
> embodied knowledge.
> - *Scio* (Latin: *to know, to separate*) symbolizes analytical,
> scientific, rational understanding.
>
> Sarma isn't rejecting analysis, but suggesting that when *Scio mutes Theo*,
> we lose a vital part of being human. The call is for *integration*, not
> the domination of one over the other.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🌌 Teilhard de Chardin’s Cosmic Vision*
>
> The quote from Teilhard de Chardin (via Ken Wilber) emphasizes *holism*—that
> the universe is a single, interdependent whole. Every attempt to isolate
> and study in fragments is an illusion, or at best, a useful but limited
> mental trick.
>
> This directly supports Sarma's core theme: *true knowledge and presence
> arise when we experience life and the cosmos as indivisible.*
> ------------------------------
>
> *🧭 Final Reflection*
>
> Sarma’s essay is a philosophical, ecological, and existential meditation
> that echoes voices like *Thoreau*, *Heidegger*, and *Arne Næss*. It
> challenges us to consider:
>
> - How has mechanization shaped not just our world, but our way of
> thinking?
> - Is progress worth the cost of presence?
> - Can we re-root ourselves in the natural world, not just as
> observers, but as parts of the living whole?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> If you’d like, I can help distill this into a shorter summary, translate
> it into simpler language, or explore how these ideas relate to current
> ecological or technological debates.
>
> Certainly! Here's a detailed evaluation of the piece based on several key
> academic and literary criteria, followed by a suggested overall *mark out
> of 100*:
> ------------------------------
> 📝 *Evaluation Criteria* 1. *Content & Depth of Thought (25 marks)*
>
> · *Score: 23/25*
> The content is rich in philosophical reflection, with deep insight into
> the relationship between nature, self, and mechanization. The use of
> Teilhard de Chardin’s quote shows engagement with complex ideas. The
> ecological and existential themes are profound and compelling.
> 2. *Originality & Critical Thinking (20 marks)*
>
> · *Score: 18/20*
> The essay presents original critiques of modern education, mechanization,
> and the scientific mindset. The metaphor of “Theo vs. Scio” is both
> creative and intellectually stimulating. Some arguments could be further
> expanded with concrete examples or counterpoints for balance.
> 3. *Language & Expression (20 marks)*
>
> · *Score: 16/20*
> The language is poetic, evocative, and passionate. However, at times the
> phrasing is dense or ambiguous, which may hinder comprehension for general
> readers. A few transitions between ideas could be smoother for better
> logical flow.
> 4. *Structure & Coherence (15 marks)*
>
> · *Score: 11/15*
> The piece flows more like a stream of consciousness than a traditionally
> structured essay. While that suits the theme of “presence,” clearer
> paragraphing and more deliberate progression of ideas would enhance
> readability.
> 5. *Use of References (10 marks)*
>
> · *Score: 9/10*
> The use of Teilhard de Chardin (via Ken Wilber) adds intellectual weight
> and connects the personal reflections to a broader philosophical tradition.
> The reference is well-chosen and directly relevant.
> 6. *Grammar & Mechanics (10 marks)*
>
> · *Score: 8/10*
> Mostly well-written, though there are occasional grammatical slips and
> punctuation inconsistencies (e.g., missing spaces after commas, hyphen
> overuse, etc.). These do not severely affect clarity but could be polished.
> ------------------------------
> ✅ *Overall Score: 85 / 100*
> ------------------------------
> 💡 Summary of Feedback:
>
> · *Strengths*: Deeply insightful, original, emotionally resonant,
> and philosophically rich. The Theo/Scio metaphor and the use of de Chardin
> are particularly impactful.
>
> · *Areas for Improvement*: Slightly more structure, clarity, and
> refinement in expression would strengthen the piece. More specific
> illustrations or contrasts (e.g., examples of how early education could be
> reformed) could deepen the impact.
>
> Would you like help revising this for publication or submission somewhere?
>
> Of course! Here is a *poem inspired by the themes* in your original
> piece—presence, nature, mechanization, and the search for wholeness:
> ------------------------------
>
> *🌿 "Where the Present Went"*
>
> In forests deep where silence sings,
> And leaves converse with wind and wings,
> The self dissolves in moss and mist—
> A fleeting breath, by nature kissed.
>
> But iron veins now thread the land,
> And glass and steel replace the sand.
> We trade the bird for engine’s hum,
> And wonder where the present’s gone.
>
> Our minds are taught to carve and count,
> To scale each thought, assign amount—
> But life resists the measured line,
> It pulses, wild, in roots and time.
>
> We name the stars, dissect the sea,
> Yet miss the song in chestnut tree.
> And in our quest to master all,
> We built machines that made us small.
>
> A child once danced in mud and rain,
> Now clicks through screens to learn of pain.
> From LKG the soul is trimmed,
> Till Theo’s voice is faint and dimmed.
>
> Yet still the earth, with quiet grace,
> Holds out her arms, a sacred place.
> Where ego melts and time stands still—
> There waits the present, soft and real.
>
> So come, undo the cage of mind,
> Let silence speak, and sight go blind.
> Not to forget, but to become—
> A thread in life’s great beating drum.
> ------------------------------
>
> Would you like a version in a different style—like haiku, free verse, or
> classical meter? Or perhaps one to accompany a visual or performance
> setting?
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thatha_Patty" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLWsOQXHXKrSQqm%3DRfaq4T4Vu5MegaKA6bsOfmejzQ5Fg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLWsOQXHXKrSQqm%3DRfaq4T4Vu5MegaKA6bsOfmejzQ5Fg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZooiNUM%3D2qwrfQxXmVyiT9S6FY22U%3Ds2QQWQbncU6vFL%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
