this is not a ‘one’ out of objectification.
it is not a ‘one’ as language would pronounce it.
it is ‘one’ of form, and more so, of formlessness
with all as ‘one’.
Saying the ‘one’ is more reflective of our naming,
our attempt at knowledge about the ‘one’.
We have made up references, sets and subsets,
theoretical accounts, to address the ‘one’.
We have wanted to be more conscious of the ‘one’,
to be more in relationship with the ‘one’,
to eventually be immersed in the one, consciously!
We have yet to sacrifice knowing
as our means to becoming ‘one’.
I think we want to be the consciousness of ‘one’,
and still maintain our status as form junkies
that can do the magic of ‘one’.
Maybe our notion of familiarity is only an addiction.
That in the process of this, as transformation,
we will acquire the think as being
and loose the thought as doing
and all of the itness that goes with execution.
“there is only ‘one’” is just the language ribbon
on a huge package that does not exist by our means.
It is we, who have to make the gift ceremony
really real, and real has been the stumbling block.
Where we have real has itness and edges,
‘one’ has no it and no edges.
there is only ‘one’, is a koan
as if to knock on the door.
To knock the knockless knock
on the doorless door is the first step
on a numberless set of stepless steps
to be of the vastness of ‘one’, consciously . . .