You are a Goddess Incarnate of love

[osho]

You are a real Goddess, untarnished and incarnated

Had you not been a powerful Goddess
You would never have empowered me
I am happy to sing songs in prayers

My heart leaps up and distances are blurred
This is not material or mental to love and hate
It is beyond the ordinary
Astral and ethereal

Who can stop me from singing when the song springs from my heart?

When you are there, a Goddess in fool bloom,
Radiating rays of heart and sensitivity
Who can stop me from worshiping?

I am a bird of heaven who has descended descended here to sing
Birds are for singing
Flowers are for blooming
Mountains are for standing high
Giving the onlooker the look of majesty and serenity

If you are a beauty by nature
Your Dharma is to enrapture the spectator
My Dharma and Karma are to shower you with rains of love

[Jack of Hearts]

Well it's admittedly not this reader's cup of tea. Some of it is very grandiose (which was probably the point). It doesn't really feel personal or sincere, which is a fault of this antiquated language/pledging of love- this reader imagines that a person could easily say these things and not mean them. There are fragments of great imagery that are cut short by too much nonpoetic declaration.

To be fair, this reader mostly has a problem with this style of poem, not your poem in particular.






J

[deryk]

It has a very nice quality, in that Petrarchan, antiquated mode. I greatly appreciated "fool bloom" but did not enjoy the repetition of "powerful" and "empowered". As Jack said, the drawback of this poem is that it doesn't seem to pursue real love, but rather to pursue the pursuit of love, in which I think it functions far better.

[Buh4Bee]

Maybe Osho's inspiration was based on a farce?

[osho]

Maybe Osho's inspiration was based on a farce?

Buh you maybe right and maybe this originates from some juxtaposed situation. I have seen both the farce and euphoria in love, life and in poetry and then I chose to commingle all to strike hard for tangy effects that draw you to write your comment, very stirring.

[blazeofglory]

I like your poem (s) and the reason is you dip into some undetected human psyches and do something undone. For the sheer assortment you have rendered your poems I cannot stop commending you. There were instances more that at which I had to disagree, maybe we come from different cultures and our sources of ideas and resources may massively differ I however at some point stop for a moment and read your passion impregnated poems. Sometimes you write coldly as Delta pointed out and again suddenly from the same heart cascades emotions-packed poems like this.

I could not understand what is there between Buh4Bee and yourself, a kind of tug of war that got her to write something against this poem. And what befuddles me is despite her sharp and sardonic criticism, a kind of mockery you still write appreciably about her comment. This is mystifying. I do not mean to displease Buh4Bee or to please you. I am only an observer.

This poem smells of romantic thought and some people dislike romantic or something full of sensuousness. Poetry is not something that must be guided by some particular schools of thought and it is universal and from that lens I find osho's poem appealing and compelling.

[Buh4Bee]

Blaze, I'm not not displeased. If I sound sardonic, it's because I always sounds that way.

I was remarking on that the source of inspiration does not appear to come from a source of love, but more form lust. But who is to really judge? Aren't we here to just comment.

[blazeofglory]

Blaze, I'm not not displeased. If I sound sardonic, it's because I always sounds that way.

I was remarking on that the source of inspiration does not appear to come from a source of love, but more form lust. But who is to really judge? Aren't we here to just comment.

This is strange. Many saw in the poem of osho beauty and you saw farce, ugliness and lust and the sardonic and mocking comment you have with that word farce speaks up a lot about the person. I do not think you are always this and I have read plenty of your comments and you sounded a good and unbiased commenter but in this case without justifying wherein osho's poem is farce and full of lust. It seems a kind of personal attack and I as a member of this forum with my due respects for all want to say the comment you wrote is unjustifiable and full of mockery.

These feelings he has written come from a heart and I like it and most of the commentators liked it and to see ugly and dirty and farce is uncanny.

If you have something personally you can PM rather than commenting disgracefully and writing poetry is not an easy job and people can easily comment but cannot compose.

Learn to respect the feelings of others as a member of this beautiful forum.

I wonder even if you became reprisal of his poem osho with a good amount of humility supported you and there was no nuance of rebuke and retort in his reply.

This is reflective of the person's attitude.

[ftil]

This is strange. Many saw in the poem of osho beauty and you saw farce, ugliness and lust and the sardonic and mocking comment you have with that word farce speaks up a lot about the person. I do not think you are always this and I have read plenty of your comments and you sounded a good and unbiased commenter but in this case without justifying wherein osho's poem is farce and full of lust. It seems a kind of personal attack and I as a member of this forum with my due respects for all want to say the comment you wrote is unjustifiable and full of mockery.

These feelings he has written come from a heart and I like it and most of the commentators liked it and to see ugly and dirty and farce is uncanny.

If you have something personally you can PM rather than commenting disgracefully and writing poetry is not an easy job and people can easily comment but cannot compose.

Learn to respect the feelings of others as a member of this beautiful forum.

I wonder even if you became reprisal of his poem osho with a good amount of humility supported you and there was no nuance of rebuke and retort in his reply.

This is reflective of the person's attitude.

It is interesting that you got that impression from Jersea’s comment. She didn’t talk about ugliness but she mentioned that perhaps the inspiration comes from lust not love. Have you thought about the fact that different people may have different understanding of love. Osho said, “I have seen both the farce and euphoria in love”. Well, I would argue that there is farce in love. I would also argue that there is euphoria in love. But then we need to clarify what love means. Do we talk about strong physical attraction that we mistakenly take as love?
I can agree that the strong physical attraction is full of euphoria and farce but it is not love. :wink5:

[free]

I see your poem as a celebration of love in general that was inspired by a personal experience of it. One can have the feeling of personal love experinece as a manifestation of divine, of god's interference in human life, which is really one of the greatest kinds of experiencing both the love and the divine. This is the good side of this poem, from my point of view.

[Scheherazade]

This feels and reads like a Hallmark card; rich with cliches but I really like the opening and the line "My heart leaps up and distances are blurred".

Not sure what to make of "This is not material or mental to love and hate". What does it mean exactly?

"Who can stop me to sing when the song springs from my heart?" - "from singing"?

"I am a bird of heaven descended here to sing" - "who has descended" reads better.

"When you are there, a Goddess in fool bloom" - a comma at the end of the line is also needed, I feel.

"Birds are for singing
Flowers are for blooming
Mountains are for standing high
Giving the onlooker the look of majesty and serenity" - This whole stanza sounds like "roses are red, violets are blue". Needs some work to make it stronger and effective without sounding like cliche.


My Dharma and Karma is to shower you with rains of love - "are to shower you"


Actually, having a second look at the poem, there are other places punctuation is needed. Or you can stop using them all together. What is not acceptable, in my view, is inconsistency.

[virginiawang]

Emily Dickinson even created commas of different shapes. It is interesting. She is one of the most read poets in the period of Transcendentalism.
In my opinion, the best poem defies grammar, punctuation, or everything I do not like.

[osho]

Emily Dickinson even created commas of different shapes. It is interesting. She is one of the most read poets in the period of Transcendentalism.
In my opinion, the best poem defies grammar, punctuation, or everything I do not like.

This speaks up the very soul of my writing and I always write in the spirit of what Virginia spelled out. Grammar is oftentimes delimiting and one, as a poet can go above and beyond such tangles. However as a prose writer you have no choice and you have to agree to all the standards of what Grammar has to say.

Poetry is, my friends, something different.

[Scheherazade]

If that is your approach to punctuation, then you should stop using them all together. What is not acceptable in my opinion is the inconsistency. You cannot use it here and there.

As for poor grammar... Well, there is no excuse for that.

[Delta40]

When I first joined Lit-Net, I didn't use punctuation at all until somebody said it would read better with it. Although I know it is a matter of personal preference, I do agree with Scher's comment about consistency.

[virginiawang]

"They knew what he liked best — to be for ever walking up and down, up and down, with Mr Ramsay, and saying who had won this, who had won that, who was a “first rate man” at Latin verses, who was “brilliant but I think fundamentally unsound,” who was undoubtedly the “ablest fellow in Balliol,” who had buried his light temporarily at Bristol or Bedford, but was bound to be heard of later when his Prolegomena, of which Mr Tansley had the first pages in proof with him if Mr Ramsay would like to see them, to some branch of mathematics or philosophy saw the light of day. "~~~Virginia Woolf

The above is a really long sentence written by Virginia Woolf. She started the sentence quite well, following grammatical rules I think, but when she reached the second part of the sentence, she leapt out of the reign of grammar and let random words guide her here and there, before she drew a period to this sentence, one I found in the opening chapter of a famous book, To The Lighthouse. It is only one of the examples I can give from many books written by many great writers of the modern era. Why? It is because Grammar is rubbish. Great writers do not like grammar.
Anyone here is welcomed to attempt at giving an explanation of the long sentence written by Virginia Woolf, especially the part toward the end of it, in terms of modern English grammar. I do not think any of you can, because it is ungrammatical.

"As scholars saw the eccentric dashes, first typeset and later in the poet's own hand, interpretations blossomed. Kamilla Denman offers the amusing image of critics rescuing Dickinson as "an eccentric transcendentalist" or scolding her as a "grammatical reprobate," while others elevate her punctuation to "the lofty realm of para-language" (24). In 1955, Johnson condemned Dickinson's dashes as "especially capricious" ("Creating" xiii). In a controversial 1963 Saturday Review article and again in a 1971 book, Edith Wylder proposed that the dashes served as systematic phonetic elocution marks."

I adapted the above from an essay I came across online, entitled Interpreting Poetic Punctuation.

It is really interesting to know that some of Emily Dickinson's eccentric dashes had been viewed as systematic phonetic elocution marks by people who read her poems later. Anything can happen in poetry. Punctuation can be changed and created in the writing of a poem, and grammar must be rewritten, if the poet does not have a wish to follow grammar.

[Buh4Bee]

This is strange. Many saw in the poem of osho beauty and you saw farce, ugliness and lust and the sardonic and mocking comment you have with that word farce speaks up a lot about the person. I do not think you are always this and I have read plenty of your comments and you sounded a good and unbiased commenter but in this case without justifying wherein osho's poem is farce and full of lust. It seems a kind of personal attack and I as a member of this forum with my due respects for all want to say the comment you wrote is unjustifiable and full of mockery.

These feelings he has written come from a heart and I like it and most of the commentators liked it and to see ugly and dirty and farce is uncanny.

If you have something personally you can PM rather than commenting disgracefully and writing poetry is not an easy job and people can easily comment but cannot compose.

Learn to respect the feelings of others as a member of this beautiful forum.

I wonder even if you became reprisal of his poem osho with a good amount of humility supported you and there was no nuance of rebuke and retort in his reply.

This is reflective of the person's attitude.

Thank you Blaze for the insight!

[virginiawang]

"Although Dickinson was inspired by Robert Browning, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and John Keats, her work—replete with her characteristic capitalizations and odd punctuation is more often associated with that of Walt Whitman. Along with Whitman and other writers, Dickinson helped create a "uniquely American poetic voice" in literature"

The above are two of the sentences I read in an article online, about the miracle of Emily Dickinson's poems. She invented a great deal of grammar, indeed, by the time she lived, merely for her poems, to be read by herself and those who had a wish to read them. As for those who love grammar, she never invited them to the realm of her poems. She didn't publish the poems herself after she wrote them. They were published posthumorously by those who loved her poems.

“Now through this transparency became visible those wondrous pastures, at first so moon-white, radiant, where no foot has been; meadows of the rose, the crocus, of the rock and the snake too; of the spotted and swart; the embarrassing, the binding and tripping up”

It was another long sentence created by Virginia Woolf. I haven’t read the book, The Waves, and I opened the book randomly. I spotted this ungrammatical sentence. I believe she wrote all of her books wonderfully, and left grammatical mistakes here and there, to adorn her works with naturally. She did not like grammar. Words took her everywhere to go after her feels.

[hillwalker]

Virginia Woolf (I've only just noticed the initials you both share) was one of the first writers to utilise the 'stream of consciousness' technique in her writing. It's not so much ungrammatical as stretching the rules of conventional expression. Her wonderful writing is still coherent enough to be meaningful - more accurately mirroring the way we absorb information.

We don't generally receive information in complete sentences or neat little packages. Instead we pick up snippets here and there - then eventually attempt to bind them into some cohesive whole so they make sense. That's why misunderstanding arise so often because we are all prone to make different associations despite being presented with the same set of facts.

H

[virginiawang]

To Hillwalker, I really agree with you. What you wrote above really explains the reason why some writers and poets never care about grammar. They write down what come to them one after another, the way they feel them.


It's not so much ungrammatical as stretching the rules of conventional expression. Her wonderful writing is still coherent enough to be meaningful - more accurately mirroring the way we absorb information.
The point is it does not follow grammatical rules. I agree with you that she is a miraculous writer. I only want to point out the fact that such a great writer who wrote miracles for English Literature loved lapses in grammar, because they presented a taste different from that of ordinary writers who think about grammar all the time.


We don't generally receive information in complete sentences or neat little packages. Instead we pick up snippets here and there

You addressed the necessity of ignoring grammar in great literature wonderfully, in details. Thanks, Hillwalker.

[virginiawang]

I copied the poem in a notebook when it was posted here a few days ago, for reasons I do not wish to share with all of you here. All through the debate yesterday, I thought about it with anger. I do not think a poem or a work of literature, must say hello to grammar, because as I said yesterday, Virginia Woolf and Emily Dickinson created their own grammar for the works they did, to suit their mood, by the time they wrote them. Grammar only lists off ways most people use the language in their place as native speakers, and it does not list some of the ways native writers and poets wish to voice in their works, not to mention the unique ways a foreigner writes in their books, poems, posts or whatever. I am one of them, so I never think about grammar. It is because I do not think the way native speakers do. Why do I have to imitate them? However I do have a wish to imitate the books I’ve read, and I believe that makes my writing a great deal different from some of those in this forum.

I must apologize here for trying to be somewhat rude. If Schezerazade thought it adequate to criticize the original poster of this thread upon some of the words in this poem, by reading it in the eyes of a native speaker who speaks more than the original poster, can I criticize posts submitted by Schezerazade, by my experience in books, most of which were written by secluded awkward writers who made grammatical mistakes all through their works. It is rather interesting that their ungrammatical works were appreciated for their own voice and taste, which stood out distinctively among grammatical works.

As I already pointed out yesterday the fact that Emily Dickinson wrote poems to spend her time with, to engage her feelings, and to put it more simple, to offer herself as some sort of gifts to be read over again when she had a wish to read it, she did not publish the poems in her lifetime. She dedicated them to herself only, so she created punctuation in a way people never understood after she died, when her poems were published. The object for whom she wrote the poems, was she herself, so she did not have to care about what the world may say when they read the poems. Therefore she drew different shapes of dashes, and commas, to better express herself. Perhaps a longer dash may have meant a long pause that rendered the lines a different feeling than a twisted dash, for example. She created so many different dashes that placed themselves in different angles. Nobody knew what she really wanted to express by that. However that is not important. It is because the poems were not written for the posterity that read them. They were written for herself.
Here I do not think Osho wrote the poem for Schezerazade or for the world, to please them. It is truly unneeded for him to conform to the rules of grammar that explains how native speakers speak in their daily lives. Perhaps the object for whom Osho wrote the poem understood and liked the ungrammatical lines better, because she could get the feels and meanings by reading the poem the way it was, and became baffled by reading the edited version. I firmly believe that Nobody can correct my work once it was written because all the words, grammatical or ungrammatical, represented my heart the best at the moment I wrote them down.
Besides, Virginia Woolf never considered grammar when she wrote. I think the reason why her writing did not conform to modern grammar is because she seldom left her home. She didn’t attend a college. She seldom talked with people who spoke English. She wrote beautifully in a unique style that defied grammar.

I do not know to whom Osho dedicated this poem, but I somehow get the feeling that this goddess loves the poem the way it was. Here it is.

You are a real Goddess, untarnished and incarnated

Had you not been a powerful Goddess
You would never have empowered me
I am happy to sing songs in prayers

My heart leaps up and distances are blurred
This is not material or mental to love and hate
It is beyond the ordinary
Astral and ethereal

Who can stop me to singing when the song springs from my heart?

When you are there, a Goddess in fool bloom
Radiating rays of heart and sensitivity
Who can stop me from worshiping?
I am a bird of heaven descended here to sing

Birds are for singing
Flowers are for blooming
Mountains are for standing high
Giving the onlooker the look of majesty and serenity

If you are a beauty by nature
Your Dharma is to enrapture the spectator

My Dharma and Karma is to shower you with rains of love