Sometimes one gets frustrated trying to find clean and accurate phrases to wordify this immaculate suchness – ‘n’ – the ‘what-is.’
Language – this English one at any rate – is quite useless for this purpose. Whatever is uttered immediately needs qualification, adjustment, explanation.
Perhaps poetry is the medium, but its technologies aren’t known to me.
(Are they knowable at all?)
The problem is the subject-object split.
If I say, “I am sad”, for example, I lie.
I cannot find an owner of sadness (or any-thing else).
Sadness simply is ‘what-is.’
Perhaps one could say, “I is sadness.”
But that would be grammatically clumsy. And also irrelevant, because the ‘I’ seeks no reason for it; ‘I’ has no aversion towards it; has no need to express it.
The sensation of sadness is an energetic body-brain response to apparent conditions, often appropriate and inevitable in the grand scheme of dream-scenarios – as is all suffering, at the bottom line.
And, like the dreams, changing, always changing.
How then to write about That which never changes?
Poetry is the medium.
Like creativity, knowing nothing about how to ‘do it’ is probably the only way for it to happen.
can you say a word of truth?
can you say it now?
and that’s a lie!
we live on luscious lies spun by language
the most outrageous lie of all
is the one that creates the illusion of
a self separate from Suchness
but its intimate accomplice,
which posits a no-self,
is equally devious
A concept of a self is necessary for function/interaction/communication with ‘things,’ including people that appear to be separate from that self. It’s impossible to avoid the use of this concept when using language, which is crowded with personal pronouns: I-me-myself-mine …
There’s nothing wrong with any of this, but imagine how amazing it would be to form a way of wordifying the world without dualism’s defaults? Imagine a language that was made up of vital verbs with little prefixes and suffixes to denote time and space? I’m not the first to raise this possibility, and I realize that some indigenous languages approach it, but imagine if it was mainstream-speak. Imagine how neat it would be to utter a phrase of this language and be understood – which would immediately imply a shared view of Beingness.
mind loves to move concepts around
but Beingness remains silent and ineffable
utterly unaffected by wordifying or worlding
while never for a second separate from them