and who is to say a firefly doesn't dream? i like the way you conclude this poem and its juxtaposition with night rain, Shyam. The poet in you shines.

robert wilson
Robert Wilson Sun, Jul 16th 2006, 23:56  
Surely Robert Infinite Distinct Multiple Perceptive cosmoses Of Infinite Beings is the unique nature Of our Brahman Way if i may say so. Please check for my many Haiku which attributes the dream and visionary state to every being. Search for "dream" say in the site ~ Also, Please check the essay here. ~ This essay has been on the net for last five years on various sites. We insist the firefly dreams angels and Apocalypse!
Narayanan Raghunathan Mon, Jul 17th 2006, 04:17  
Many thanks Robert. Actually, I did not say fireflies don't dream but it's the angels dreaming here. The fireflies sense and respond to that sublime gestalt. This rather reminds of Blake seeing angels in trees when he was a child. As Narayanan said, there are infinite distinct multiple perceptive cosmoses of beings [in constant communication]. Surely, this has been the constant preoccupation of our school and a lifelong one for Narayanan. It's something that he distinctly brought to the world of Haiku and passed on to me and Amanda Cazalet over these many years. His essay makes it all clear, I wholeheartedly recommend it. It features haiku by me and Amanda too.

To marvel at fireflies (and conjecture that they may dream) is one thing, but to see them dreaming is quite another. To see them participate in the dreams of angels, still another! I hope you see that. Many people go to zoos and marvel at the animals, or keep pets as companions. But few share the dream of a dog or a tiger or a butterfly, much less a firefly. That's fine because it must be terrifying surely! But we (N, Amanda and I) have deep respect for the cosmoses of other beings (divine and earthy) and we practice ahimsa (non-injury, vegetarianism) at all times. So we exhort these perceptions of these beings as one would praise the acts of their own children.

There are poets and then there are visionaries. :-) Wordsworth vs Blake for instance. The poet crafts and juxtaposes, and the visionary necessarily selects from his vast (seamless) fields of visions. He may share and spread his visions too. Actually they spread like wildfires regardless. So our school has inevitably informally spread its message. It's interesting that our seeings have no classical haiku precursors either. Show me a likeness from classical haiku and I will explain the difference. The great masters were Zen or occasionally animistic poets, but not seers of animal cosmoses. Aesop was animistic/anthropomorphic. Some Jataka tales and Panchatantra are animistic. But even those great works are not *multiple cosmoses*. May I be pardoned by these great people for this blunt exactitude on their legacy, but I hope I've made the point. In our school we have long wished people who have started to write like us would seek this discrimination -- for truth and their own delight.

As N suggested, you may try doing a search for "cosmos" or "cosmoses" in Museki Abe's Photo Haiku Gallery. Note that in 2001, only one person had ever used that word in an astronomical, scientific sense. Then along comes "RUDRA". Then notice the same word is used repeatedly by many others, in a vastly different sense (cosmos as a being's projection). This is trivial evidence, there is plenty more. We intend to make it all clear and public soon, for surely the truth should be seen and acknowledged?

Anyhow, I have digressed -- thanks again for the kind comment and the attention.

Shyam Santhanam Mon, Jul 17th 2006, 23:05  
login to post comment.