Setting free..

Said the tree,
“Pick not my flower!”
Said the flower,
“Do not harm the tree but take me!
Take me but dont hurt the tree..
If the tree is hurt I too would be!”
How I wished for the flower..
It smiled there with glistening dew
Full of love
For a moment, I begged
“Dear tree shed the flower
Give to me my dear lover
It wont hurt thee
It wont harm thee
Give my little flower to me!”
The tree looked away quietly
carrying the memory
I staggered away slowly love means to set free…

16 thoughts on “Setting free..

  1. “Setting free” might be itself relative.. it may be there with u but still “free”.. it may not be there with u but still tied down… and actually, both could mean the same thing…

  2. its a complex oxymoron.. at certain times u tend not to do things just because u have the freedom to do it… the hesitancy to use the liberty we r given for the sake of some better things…

    call it.. “tied down by freedom”…

  3. Which actually is not freedom…because once you feel “tied down” it is not freedom anymore..

    Freedom should set you at ease at all levels..and the concept of “setting free” is itself an oxymoron..

    It is the inadequacy of language that has made me choose this title..

    If you see what I meant it would be an idea of eliminating all interference and considering oneself insignificant while in love..except probably in giving love..

    The basic idea I wished to convey was to say that to love does not mean to possess..

  4. completely agree… love doesnt entail a bond! it only demands that time should not challenge status quo… i mean love should not thrust endurance upon you, unless u dont mind any change, and in that case, of course, the word endurance will not appropriately describe the feeling; the persons in love remain the same, only exalted by each others’ gratitude.

    and yes, u’ve conveyed ur idea with vivid imagery (not the pic u’ve provided! mental imagery!)

  5. I agree to the words in ur poetry.. makes beautiful sense…

    but when u start looking at generalizing the “idea”…

    >>to love does not mean to possess..

    why do we always look at “possissiveness” to be something of a bad quality…

  6. Possessiveness is not bad…it could be beautiful..but it is only a level…it is not “love”..
    This is my personal view..

    Possessiveness will hurt in time…and it comes from a superior feeling about onself of being capable of possessing the object of love..

    Fine…if you feel you’re capable or worthy of possessing the! However, when the possession is denied you, you must not fret! Even if you fret, your love must learn to set free the object you are holding on to..

    You can feel the beauty of true love when you forget the concept of a “future” and of keeping the person for yourself..

  7. >>when the possession is denied you, you must not fret!

    Agreed. What we do if our possession is denied.. well, this is a different question altogether…

    >>and of keeping the person for yourself..

    oh wow oh… when did “object” get converted to “person”… :p
    Loving and being possessive of an object is COMPLETELY different from loving and being possessive of a person… dont mix the two…

    but my point is.. I “am” possessive about certain things… but i do believe in the fact that if i deserve to retain it, i will at any cost!! If dont deserve, I can’t, even if i stand upside down and scale the alps walking on my fingers…. 🙂

  8. The poem is analogical..I thought you understood that much..after all it is not just about a “flower”. “Object” as in object of love or object of desire..

    I shall mix the two because at some point it is better to gain equanimity when it comes to objects (as in material things) too..

    The idea of deserving something rises purely from your own judgment of yourself. The world might not perceive you the way you perceive yourself, which is probably why someone else is present to deny the object to you. The other person could be more “deserving” the tree in the poem is a contender for the flower.

    However the “I” in the poem chooses to walk away because s/he realizes that the “flower” does not wish to hurt the tree..and here the persona respects the flower’s feelings..and the persona’s love shall survive whether the flower is possessed by her/him or not.

    The flower could have made a choice but when we know it did not, we realize it has obligations to the tree. To analyze the nature of these obligations would be a different discussion.

    The idea is to show that to love something you need not possess it..and to love something by setting it free is far more beautiful.

  9. >>The world might not perceive you the way you perceive yourself

    Perception is something. “Truth” is something.. we may be caught in the haze of biased perceptions but the “truth” is omnipresent.. whether one’s perception agrees with it or not, he has to come to terms with it some day or other…

    My meaning of “deserving” stems not from the perceptions, but from the “truth”…

    >>The idea is to show that to love something you need not possess it..and to love something by setting it free is far more beautiful

    I’ll love. I’ll possess. I’ll let it free. And yet, still possess it!!

  10. I may not see the flower
    May not scent it
    May not adorn my hair with it
    May not touch its dewy petals

    My love transcends physical possession of the lover. It thrives by itself and does not need the motivating presence of the lover. It would carry on with the knowledge that the flower once said “Take me”! That will suffice!

    Sometimes perception is more important than reality. If not for perception we might not even be arguing..

    What is “truth”? I do not consider myself capable of knowing it. I wish to let it flit by each moment. For all we know, our very idea on the nature of truth could be flawed.

    The kind of love I talk about arises from contentment. It does not seek for more. It is happy in itself not in what it will get.

    You may not understand. You need to be here to feel it.

  11. Very nice and meaningful verse. If the tree is the world view and it feeds us as it would feed the fruits we seek, we are fruits which other beings seek too. Parents are as Gibran put it,

    Your children are not your children.
    They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.

    They come through you but not from you,

    And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.

    You may give them your love but not your thoughts.

    For they have their own thoughts.

    You may house their bodies but not their souls,

    For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

    You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you,

    For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

    You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.

    The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends with you His might that His arrows might go swift and far.

    Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;

    For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.

    –Kahlil Gibran

  12. To look upon the loved one as
    “God must see you – the fiction of time destroyed,
    free from love, from me”
    That’s the essence of true love.
    And your “I” knows it!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s