I said that. I made it up. Not "Enlightenment islanguage.". It's "Enlightenment is languaged.".
I'm not invested in it as "the truth" mind you. It may not
be. It may be. You say. Whichever you say it is, it's a
point of view,
perspective from which to
stand and look.
When I first saw two of me, it seemed to fly in the face
of everything I've ever learned and heard. Everything I've ever learned
and heard tells me "There's only one.". That said, it's two of me I see
- in spite of there should be "... only one.". So either
I'm mistaken or the concept "... only one ..." is.
I make a note to ask you about this, to run it by you at an appropriate
moment. Now the opportunity has come. You're leaning against a tree. I
can almost sense its trunk relishing its moment to support you. It's
silent briefly, a perfect moment. I share what I've seen. I
language it. I wait while you look. Then silence follows
silence as we notice the
breaching the horizon.
I can language with you. I can say anything with you. If I
don't know how to say it ie if I've never said it before,
I can try it out with you. I can share my unfiltered, raw
thoughts with you. With you I can speak naked truth, unrefined
realization, virgin consideration and not be concerned
with how it'll resonate when it comes out of my mouth. But the thing is
this: without ever speaking it, I'll never know how it'll
resonate when it comes out of my mouth.
I'm not talking about stream of consciousness riffing or
rapping here. I'm not talking about venting whatever's on my
mind. I'm talking about standing upright, flat footed and stone
cold sober speaking the first light of truth, the first
dawn of realization, the first appearance of
before they get bent, mangled, and trampled into what
sounds good, into what sounds profound, into
what sounds intelligent, into what makes me right.
I need no costume with you. With you I require no veil nor mask.
pretense vaporizes like a snowflake in a furnace around you. Around you
I can be! I can language. I can really
language! Around you is the perfect proving
ground for testing new thoughts, for trying on new ideas. Here I have
neither righteousness nor arrogance in what I'm saying. These thoughts
and ideas I speak may have been expressed before in the world.
But they're thoughts and ideas which I have never
expressed before. They're rough - like unpolished diamonds. They're
naïve - at least, to a certain degree. But such is
the purity found only in genesis. Such is the innocence
experienced only in the beginning.
Not insignificant are the
traditions I immersed myself in before I met you which emphasized the
one I am, the one we are. It's not that I've discounted that way of
looking at things because I haven't. Rather, I've realized that
particular way of looking at things lacks
renders looking at the one I am and the one we are
conceptual rather than as the living experience I'm having
Looking at this closer, I'm able to dispense with the concept of only
one, asking myself rather
in my experience right now?". And the truth is it's really more
accurate to say there's not one of me - there's
When I ask you about this, I'm saying two like something I've glimpsed
yet am not sure of. I'm not at all sure of
two of me - at first. My
clever as it is (ie as
clever as it always is ...), emphasizes "There's only one.". And
yet ... I see two.
I'm expecting a clarification or even a correction from you: one, not
Instead you confirm: two, not one.
This whole thing rides on two "experiential distinctions" which is to
say if I look into my experience, I can locate the "I" I
say I am - which you acknowledge, and add "You're not that.". I can
also locate the
in which the "I" I say I am
- which you acknowledge as
"who I really am".
That's the two I'm speaking about - two of me, one unreal, one real (if
you will) but both present in my experience. To get this,
I have to set aside (at least temporarily) the concept of only
one, as spiritually de rigueur as it is, and instead
simply look into my experience and say whatever's there ie say exactly
right now coming from direct
rather than from the conceptual way I think it ought to be ie without
going for the kudos by trying to get it right.
Again, the silence ... as I savor the simplicity of this erstwhile
doubted view of two of me. This space, the space languaging with you
opens up, is so very
I'm prompted to ask you if you're considering delivering
discourses anew. The ones I've heard you deliver were utterly
masterful, laying bare
in a clear, simple, palatable way which renders
totally accessible to everyone. You say you're not. I know you're
committed instead to making transformation available through the
business community and by
working withrespectable academic
That's consistent about you for me. It's OK with me ie it's OK with the
two of me. Good
while both, is always more pragmatic than spiritual.