It's one of the
essential
tenets of
transformation.
It's pivotal. It's germane. It's
fundamental.
And it's profound. It also
paradoxicallygoeswith (as
Alan Watts
may have said) the likelihood of being ground down into ie of
devolving
into a lifeless concept - such is the fate of many
brilliant
ideas which you'll easily discover don't
work
unless they're
viewedrigorously
through the
relentless
lens of
direct experience
(an often counter-intuitive requirement). That's
why
I request that as we embark on this particular essay ie as we embark on
this particular
conversation,
you dial your concept detection meter up to full volume ie up to an
eleven, and then the moment it beeps ie as soon as it detects
your
listening's
become conceptual, that you immediately reset it back to being
fully
and totally experiential.
With all that now in place, try this on for size: you're everything;
you're
nothing;
you're ... everythingnothing ... (it's
vintage Erhard).
So that we're
clear,
I'm not asking you to explain the idea. Nor am I asking you if you
disagree with it or if you agree with it. More than that, I'm not
asking you to understand it. I'm not even asking you to
think
about it. What I'm asking you to do is to try it on for size like
something you'd be looking at wearing ie like a cloak - that is to say
like an experiential cloak (if you will). And as soon as
you reach the place where you say
"I got itLaurence",
I would hope it's the experience of it you
got
(you're everything, you're
nothing,
you're everythingnothing), not the concept of it - at which point any
residual
concept can be thrown out with the bath
water.
Listen:
when I suggest we're each everything (and we're each
nothing
ie we're each everythingnothing) as our experience of ourselves,
where it becomes really
interesting
is in the compelling possibility that, by definition, everything
there is is included in "everything", yes? So if I'm
everything, and if you're also everything, then we must be identical
... no, then we must be one and the same. And what we call that
where we're one and the same, is the "being" of
"human being".
Clearly
between the "being" of
"human being"
you are, and the same "being" of
"human being"
I also am, there's no distance. More than that, between the
"being" of
"human being"
you are, and the same "being" of
"human being"
I also am, there's no difference either. That's the basis
of my assertion that the "being" of
"human being"
you are, and the same "being" of
"human being"
I also am, are more than merely identical ie they're more than merely
congruent:
my thesis is they're one and the same.
