I’ll Take Shubert

By | September 10, 2013

I participate in a Zen blog, where we’ve been exploring whether or not we separate ourselves from something by labeling it.

I replied that the question took me back to a discussion I had in college with a professor and another philosophy student. We were trying to get a Handel on whether Mo’z art reached Bach to the Brahms Age, and we went on in this fashion ad nauseam, in an effort to show that what we perceive is also something other than what we perceive.

Another example: a few years ago several of us were driving home from an evening party, and someone in the back seat said, “Look at that beautiful moonrise up ahead!” Maybe she forgot her glasses–or was it the Polish vodka?–as the only thing the rest of us saw was the upcoming stop sign. So who got separated from what?

On the blog, we’ve been Wagner tongues over this for a while–not that there’s anything the Mahler with that–it’s just that we’re Offenbach on the same topic and can’t figure out how to Schumann or woman away from it. We can Rach-‘m-an-in-off, but I’m afraid they’re mostly on.

Yet rather than Straussing out any more about it, I was Chopin’ I could just come up with something. Then I Haydn inspiration: whatever I dreamt up couldn’t be Verdi definitive anyway. There simply is no separation–it’s like Schubert, which comes in so many flavors and it’s so easy to become one with any of them.

I say we just Ravel in the now and not stoop to Bartok over this, because I really don’t give two Fuchs Weber or not you agree with me.  So if you don’t flip me the Byrd, I won’t flash my Heinrich.

Staying Hummel,



michael on December 15, 2013 at 4:42 pm.

Love is Reality
Why is Unity Love, or Love Unity? because suffering only exist in separation. It is impossible for ” I ” suffering to exist in Unity. ” I ” does not Love. ” I ” can only know Love in theory. ” I ” separates Unity, for ” I ” implies “you”. Therefore, when ” i ” is “thought of” as separate from “you” there is no Love in separation from Unity.

” I ” knows the existence of Love by theory because ” I ” is an aspect of Love separated from “you”. ” I ” does not know Love, ” I ” knows suffering.

” I ” does not Love because ” I ” does not exist. When Love is All, where is ” I “? ” I ” is Love.

Where is ” I “, where is “you”? ” I ” is in the Love {Unity} of “you”. “You” is in the Love {Unity} of ” I “.


phyllis Bala on December 15, 2013 at 5:23 am.

I read your Mongrel Scratchings for a Weil and what I have to say is “good enuff fer Yew”. And to all a good Knight.



Leave Your Comment

Your email will not be published or shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>