Where evil and good didn’t roam

Where evil and good didn’t roam

26 July 2015

good and evil deviantart com__surreal_balance_by_zxcxvxc
Courtesy user zxcxvxc on Deviantart.com

 Grey matter now pearled

Linking every cell to cell

In human bondage


Colours all faded

Into less significance

As light dulled in eyes


Senses to the peak

Feeling the way to silence

Without drawn within


Mind created void

Where evil and good didn’t roam

And stillness flew free

good and evil messagesfromthefaeries com
Courtesy messagesfromthefaeries.com

19 thoughts on “Where evil and good didn’t roam

  1. The first two stanzas of this poem remind me of an expression I’m quite fond of, that the light can blind as surely as the darkness … your last stanza is, from my point of view, the most intriguing. Most religions (and I will dare to include science in this category) agree that, before there was anything, there was nothing – Void. The first thing that came to be, then, created the first polarity: that which exists, and that which does not. We tend to still see things in a very polarized fashion. So your last stanza makes me wonder, can our minds truly create a Void (can nothingness, for that matter, even be created?); or do our minds recognize and access a Void that is already there? Either way, you are right, in that polarizations cannot exist within a Void – no good, no evil, no light, no dark – or else the Void would cease to be what it is (and is not). It would seem as though I have something to contemplate this morning, for which I’m always grateful 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you. I believe too that light can surely blind as can darkness. Regarding the nature of void, I tend to think that though it pre-existed creation, somehow because of this link between the two, in silencing the nature of polarity/duality within us through stillness and silence we could annul polarity/duality within ourselves and thus achieve or create the void by the enactment of the absence of duality. First at the level of ourselves and then with the contagious nature of the interconnectedness at the level of more than just ourselves. Perhaps a more appropriate word would have been balance according to some because of the actual conscious and active act of annulling polarity/duality but I would like to think that with the introduction of stillness and silence into the equation you actually achieve a non-active balance and therefore a passive cancellation of polarity/duality which would then equate to the nature of void. This is of course very theoretical for me at this stage but I somehow feel that it can be achieved. It is difficult though as there are some things that we have been so much drilled to think of as horrific that we get sucked back into the polarity/duality game.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I hope you will continue developing this idea of yours, and I hope you will continue to share your developments – I think this idea has vast potential.

        What I have difficulty getting my mind around, though, is the concept of a passive sort of balance. Perhaps this falls back on what you already bring up, that we essentially have much that we need to unlearn: to me, balance is not just a noun, but also a verb … it is something that is done, rather than simply something that is. Balance occurs when all involved forces equalize one another; but this does not mean that the forces involved arrive a standstill – should one of the forces involved change or yield, the balance will have to shift or be broken. In this regard, as an example, light can be balanced against dark; but the result is grey, rather than Void, because the polarities do not cancel one another out.

        You know what I think I really like about your idea? We live in a universe full of existence … our universe is existence, itself. When we seek the stillness, the Void, we are in essence seeking that which came before existence, and will return at the end of existence. We touch upon true order.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Perhaps your vision of our reality is more set on the external aspect of it than on the internalised world that I am in the process of frequenting more often. A few years ago, my search for balance was initiated through an active search of factors and tendencies within me in reaction to the outer world therefore attempting to perceive and attain balance in the outer world. This was a very active process and it definitely felt like there were opposing forces that somehow culminated into some sort of a zero point which still remained somehow impregnated with the idea of movement. Since the past year, my search of balance has been more in connection with the achieving of stillness and silence within me. When I look at the world I attempt not to judge, not to modify but just to accept. I drift into thoughtlessness and silence, also thanks to beautiful music I listen to and find myself. It is within that sense of drifting, without purpose, without judgement, without sense of what is right and what is wrong that I have come to perceive this theory of balance in the passive way where its attainment could lead to that which was not creation, that which we see as void, beyond the active zero point, where there is simply nothing. I feel that is what it must feel like to return to Source. So in some way to take the example you used balance would not be a verb at all for me but just a state, a perception of what is no more. I am yet to read about your Relative being and am sure it will be very interesting 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

          • Thank you for having the patience to explain this further – I had a large ‘Aha!’ moment while reading this 🙂 We two are actually engaged in attaining the same goal; but the directions from which we approach it, or perhaps just the imagery we use, are different.

            In life, we often hear that to find peace and satisfaction in life, we must learn to ‘go with the flow.’ This is typically an admonishment not to try to stand or move against the flow of things, of life, of Nature. I take this concept further, by trying to attune myself so that I do not just ‘go with the flow,’ but actually become one with it. The obvious difference is that you seek stillness, while what I refer to as the ‘flow’ is typically in motion. However, it is when I feel at one with life and the general flow of things that I feel a sense of stillness and silence within me. I drift, as you put it; and in so doing I surrender myself to the world around me. When I can achieve this, my mind, my ego – these things are surrendered and after a fashion, they become Void.

            I’m actually laughing right now – for whatever reason, I feel like the eloquence I would need to really explain this process (and why I think there is similarity to what you seek to achieve for yourself) is simply not there. Either I need to actually write this in something more structured than this little comment box is allowing; or we will one day need to meet up somewhere and talk about this over something to eat and drink 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

            • I think you actually very aptly described it all. We do seek the same thing but simply see it from different angles, the way we observe is different. To take an imagery which I find perhaps might convey it would be to think of the difference between the observer on the station watching the passenger within the train going with the train (flow). He sees the passenger going with the flow while the passenger himself perceives himself as still within the train (except if he chooses to move around of course 🙂 ) Basically, I seek like you to be so much with the flow that it all becomes only stillness. For me the flow in itself is actually an infinite collation of points of stillness and perhaps all we should be doing is going back to being that one point again so as to merge with source. I do hope we meet up somewhere and talk about all of this one day. Your comments are as usual very pertinent and stimulating. Thank you for all your time and thoughts 🙂


              • I really like your image of the train passenger and the observer at the station – especially when you take into account that the observer at the station, though as close to stillness as possible, stands or sits upon an Earth that is itself spinning and hurtling through space. Thus the observer at the station and the passenger on the train are really not very different at all 🙂

                I think if you and I ever do meet up to talk about all of the things that interest us and that we share in common, we would need more than ‘one day’ to do it! 🙂 And regarding the pertinence and stimulating nature of my comments, as well as your thanking me for the time and thought that goes into them, I can only respond with a single word: likewise 🙂

                Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s