A bowl
A BOWL
A bowl of water filled with grains.
Who made the bowl?
What has the maker made? to gain?
Or who the maker is, seems better to know.
For We know what he made when we know?
Or we know all he knows when we know?
No, let us first know what he made.
We might then know him, for he knows what he made.
Let us get a sieve to get the grains.
What of the rest that are not grains?
He made all so we need all to know all.
The sieve can't get all.
How then do we get what we can't get?
For the sieve is all we have, to get what we want to get.
What if that's not all ?
What if the bowl is a part of all .
A part of all that the maker knows.
Can we really know all the maker knows?
Can we really know the maker?
The grains are all we can get from the bowl.
For the sieves gets all it can get.
So we can't know what the maker made?
Or what he knows and who he is?
For we couldn't even get a part of a part of all he knows from what he made.
Life a bowl of water filled with grains.
Is logic not but a sieve?
And knowledge just grains?
Is the bowl the grains?
Is the bowl a sieve?
They are what they are, imagination is more than all.
God doesn't exist?, should remain
A questions in the lips of men
And ne'er become statement
Unless if revelation meets pity
And together, make statement.
The beauty of Gods mind
Vitalis Anekwe
ReplyDeleteThe poem was aptly captured but my criticism will be based on what the readers are meant to understand not on the grammatical correctness because the poetic license allow poets to express and mingle words following no known grammatical rule.
The first stanza ideally portrays how knowing God will give us the hindsight into knowing what he knows.
On the Second stanza that poet shifts the quest of knowledge first into knowing what God made for He is better expressed in his creations. But the last two stanza portrays the grains as the significant creature of the creator and casts doubt on wether the other items ie. Water and bowl are really prerequisites into knowing God and what he made
On the 3rd stanza the poets confirms that all needs to be explored separately in other for us to know the creature. But unfortunately the sieve as the only instrument available cannot make this fantasized separation a reality. It sublty confirms that it is impossible for us to know all that the maker made which will lead us to understand his being.
The fourth stanza equally includes the bowl into the puzzle to be eased, and leaves us to wonder on how the bowl, the water, grain and sieve will all remain separate and intact. It stresses the message of the third stanza.
On the fifth stanza. The author exposed the sad reality that the grain is all we could get. A more inquisitive mind will still doubt that the grains can be separated since it will be left inside the sieve. However the stanza generally communicates that our incapability to separate these item makes our quest for the knowledge of the maker almost unattainable.
The Sixth Stanza gives us a hindsight into understanding this puzzle. It confirms that life is this mysterious bowl of water. Logic which is human reasoning a sieve to aid us into getting the unadulterated knowledge which the grains represents. However this items which tend to be separated in our fantasized world are all but together in reality. That is in life is the reasoning and in reasoning is the knowledge.
On the last stanza. An average might think then that our inability to sperated this items cloggs our mental knowledge on the existence of God and hence might argue that what we do not know do not exist.
The poem in general raise a wide number thoughts but the most visible of the them all is that
First of all, it is a sceptical approach on the authenticity of human knowledge.
and it exposes the edge which God has placed over us the creatures, and we can never understand perfectly his being and the mystery of creation.
This is really a touch of class and I don't it could be explained better by any other analogy than the one you illustrated.