Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: shira
My dear Moonie:
Of course "world" can mean something akin to "universe," given the proper context. But I think it's pretty clear that Blake's context in that line from "Auguries of Innocence" is a single world, not the entire cosmos. Let's look at that stanza again (the bolding is mine):
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
Note that Blake uses "a world," not "the world." Clearly, "a world" is a part of something bigger, a something that contains this world, that world, Blake's "world" and every other world. A something that one could fairly refer to as "the universe."
Hehe, yes, but also note that the next two lines flesh out his real intention, that a world is infinity and a heaven is eternity. Infinity, of course, is the universe. Also poetically, it reads better as a world and a heaven, in my opinion, because you can't really say, in the context there, the world and the heaven. But, more importantly, if I may say so, he is talking about exactly that which I have been saying, namely, that there is a kind of awakening that collapses duality and ends time. One becomes the universe and enters the truth, heaven, when the ego disappears. I don't know Blake, but it sure as hell looks to me like, HE KNEW.
Also, since we are going to sever a thread with a sword here, I was referring to my statement, that the universe is contained in a grain of sand. When you said, 'Not the universe, exactly, but a good start.'
I thought you were saying you might see a world an a grain of sand but not quite a whole universe whereas that is what Blake and I were both saying.
First, your analysis of Blake's poem:
Although Blake refers to eternity, infinity, and heaven in that stanza, he doesn't say that all or even any of those may be seen in a grain of sand. He says only that "a world" may be seen in a grain of sand (and that the other big things are in a wild flower, your hand, and an hour). So even if the "sum of the parts" of that stanza is referring to the universe, each part of the stanza (the "grain of sand" line being one of those four parts) does not.
To put this more succinctly: If the sum of the parts is the whole, that doesn't mean that each part is the whole. This is very basic stuff.
Bolded part next:
In an earlier post, you wrote about a grain of sand containing the universe. Presumably, that was intended as a paraphrase (whether you knew it or not) of Blake (who "coined" the grain of sand metaphor). So I was merely pointing out that Blake had made a much more modest statement - that a world (not the entire universe) may be seen in a grain of sand.
In other words, I was pointing out that the underpinnings of your claim didn't support the "universe" interpretation. But since I'm such a comedian, I said it in a highly amusing fashion ("Not the universe, exactly, but a good start."). I crack myself up sometimes.
