We can't think about things as having thing-ness. Many language poets attempted to remind the reader that a poem is a series of words, calling attention to language and sentence construction, and that although a kind of "meaning" can be derived from these elements, not inherent, and not absolute.
"For the time being mind arrives, but words do not.
For the time being words arrive, but mind does not.
For the time being both mind and words arrive.
For the time being neither mind nor words arrive."
-Dogen, The Time-Being
- Post-modern and contemporary poems lack a definite "meaning." At Loyola (an institution!) we are even discouraged from trying to find a "meaning" within a poem when we study it in class. Poems, instead, have multiple "meanings" for the author, and every reader.
- I think that we bring our own world karma to the poem, and to the Koan, and both forms reveal what we see through the lens of our delusion.
We learn in the Mountains and Waters Sutra:
"Some beings see water as wondrous blossoms, but they do not use blossoms as water. Hungry ghosts see water as raging fire or pus and blood. Dragons see water as a palace or a pavilion. Some beings see water as the seven treasures or a wish-granting jewel. Some beings see water as a forest or a wall." Dogen, p. 167.
L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets do not only write in order to be interpreted differently based on each reader's karma, but are writing from a point of AWARENESS; knowing each reader differs in interpretation, knowing we are entrenched in systems and conventions. These poets call attention to the very delusions of expectation and non-expectation.
