I recently purchased a wonderful addition to my personal library titled – “Indaba, my Children – African Tribal History, Culture, Legends, Customs and Religious beliefs.”

I was struck by following set out in the opening –


The Sacred Story of the Tree of Life -
The Self Created

No stars were there – no sun
Neither moon nor earth
Nothing existed but darkness itself
A darkness everywhere
A nothingness neither hot nor cold
Dead or Alive –

For how long this nothingness lasted,
No one will ever know;
And why there was nothing -
[/b]But Nothing is Something[/b]
We must never try to learn.

Nothingness had been floating
For no one knows how long
Upon the invisible waters of time –
That mighty River with
Neither source nor mouth,
Which was –
Which is
And which shall ever be.

Then one day –
Or is it right to say “one day?” –
The River Time desired Nothingness
Like a flesh and blood male beast
Desires his female partner.
And as a result of this strangest mating
Of Time and Nothingness –
A most tiny invisible spark
Of Living Fire was born

This tiny Living Spark could think
And grew conscious of it’s lonely state –

“I exist – I am what I AM!” –
Was the living thought that pulsed through the “mind”
Of the tiny spark -
As it wildly flew through the dark.



This, I thought was utterly beautiful, especially as it contains seeds of the thinking I have tried to pass across regarding the rationale for God’s existence.

It is written as a poem, and thus may not be taken rationally or in terms of pure logic – but I think it conveys an interesting concept of the existence of God.

The poem carries on for about forty pages – needless to say, I cannot type this all here, but I will try to type out some portions which dwell on the existence of the Tree of Life – and which show that knowledge of that Tree is not unique to the ancient Middle-East.

The poem is interesting.

The 'god' conceptualised in it, cannot, however, be accepted as the 'God' that we know as the uncreated creator. I think that the poem tries to describe the 'beginning' of the 'process' through which space, time, matter and energy were born. In other words it describes the 'big bang' in beautiful words, but doesn't quite describe 'God'. It can, of course, open up windows of further discussion about how sentient the 'universe' is and whether there is a lot more to 'dark matter and dark energy' than meets the telescopes!

'And as a result of this strangest mating
Of Time and Nothingness –
A most tiny invisible spark
Of Living Fire was born

This tiny Living Spark could think
And grew conscious of it’s lonely state –

“I exist – I am what I AM!” –

Great comments Beneli.

I do agree that the way it is captured, it seems to refer to a beginning - whereas God cannot be said to have had a beginning.

But this is still hinted at when it says -

Then one day –
Or is it right to say “one day?” –

- It thus acknowledges in the words - "Or is it right to say one day?” – the timelessness of the factor it is referring to.

The description of Time is pertinent -

Upon the invisible waters of time –
That mighty River with
Neither source nor mouth,
Which was –
Which is
And which shall ever be.

- And indicative i think of utter eternity. Thus the subject of this Poem is clearly not the physical realm - or matter - but is transcendental reality. I therefore believe that the "beginning" of this universe (big bang/ whatever) is not what the poem refers to but the "rational" for the existence of an uncreated God -

Because the admixture of self-existent eternal time and "nothingness" (which is not nothing) is the very basis for the eternal existence of the uncreated and eternal GOD.

In this poem, that which the author calls 'Time' is like the primordial substrate of creation. From the authors perspective 'time' is self-existent (something i know from previous discussions that you agree with) and-one can almost infer-is one of the building 'blocks', so to speak, of the essence that s/he conceptualises as God-

'Nothingness had been floating
For no one knows how long
Upon the invisible waters of time –'

In my mind’s eye, 'transcendental reality' is outside of Time. In other words, 'Time' does not exist in the abode of the gods. So i do not quite agree with the author when he/she describes that which was created for the 'pleasure' of man, as though it were 'god' itself-

'That mighty River with
Neither source nor mouth,
Which was –
Which is
And which shall ever be'

But it is not very difficult to see why we are seduced into adorning Time with the halo of divinity.

‘Time’-like other created ‘particles’- is almost 'god' to man on this realm of ‘living’ that we inhabit. On this realm, bordered as it is by the materialists ‘heaven’, Life cannot exist, without the essence we call ‘Time’: here man is really ‘nothing’ without it; so one can then almost sympathise with the author when s/he states-

'And as a result of this strangest mating
Of Time and Nothingness –
A most tiny invisible spark
Of Living Fire was born '

Having said that, it's still beautiful.

Thanks again, Beneli - great comments again.

But don't you think there is a difference between eternal time (no beginning and no end) - thus timeless in effect - and finite time (as we know it) in the material realm?

Because i think the description in the poem of time -

That mighty River with
Neither source nor mouth,
Which was –
Which is
And which shall ever be.

Is sufficient to suggest eternal and not finite time - and Eternal Time (without a beginning) surely refers to the transcendental.

In other words we are actually talking about a timeless state (seeming contradiction acknowledged: insufficiency of words).

Deep Sight:

Thanks again, Beneli - great comments again.

But don't you think there is a difference between eternal time (no beginning and no end) - thus timeless in effect - and finite time (as we know it) in the material realm?

Because i think the description in the poem of time -

Is sufficient to suggest eternal and not finite time - and Eternal Time (without a beginning) surely refers to the transcendental.

In other words we are actually talking about a timeless state (seeming contradiction acknowledged: insufficiency of words).

I supppose one has to concede that for want of a better description, the transcendental state of timelessness could be referred to as 'eternal time'!

Essentially iwe may say -

Eternal Time = Self Existent continuum

Self Existence = I am that I am.

I am that I am = God.

Deep Sight:

Essentially iwe may say -

Eternal Time = Self Existent continuum

Self Existence = I am that I am.

I am that I am = God.

I would rather say 'Eternal Time' is contained in the Self-Existent Continuum but, on it's own, does not equate to the great 'I am that i am'.

Eternity-and it's product time-is one of the few thing that we can almost understand within that complexity that we try to define as the Self-Existent continuum. We understand eternity in relation to time; be it the absence or constance of time, or whatever term that may excite our intellect at any given time! Eternity will always be defined in relation to 'time' because we know not better. But saying that 'time' itself is God, is rather inaccurate IMO. That was what i noticed, insinuated in the poem.

If Time were God, then anything can happen given enough 'time'. This would be the materialists' argument. They would argue that given enough time, that which we call 'nothingness' gives birth to existence. And with 'time', existence gives birth to 'consciousness' and the complex materail 'life' forms that we have come to know.

No, i think that the great 'I am that i am' is much more than a function of time',  'timelessness' or 'eternal time'. Time is not sentient. Time is not conscious of me. It is i, that is conscious of time. My consciousness is a product of something else that is contained in that self-existent continuum, other than time-something else that is sentient and which is conscious of me. 'I' may be temporarily boundaried by time, yet 'I' is not contained by it.

'I', like that which it mirrors, is not 'time'.

Bump!