we all pick out an ‘explain’ of existence.
I cannot describe enlightenment.
I can only describe the description of it.
we live with the presumption of a here and a there
but curiously find that ‘here’ is inside the world of ‘there’,
and that the state of enlightenment as enlightenment
has no word for enlightenment.
the term enlightenment is just a bystander’s term.
but it is as a term of endearment identification.
it presupposes the beaconing of answers to questions.
it is a futurization that is a result of knowledge-perspective,
an orientation towards a completion, as if of a whole,
understanding as if resolute,
sanctity as if it were guarded,
substantive as if it were namable,
thoughtful as if it were inclusive,
and respectful, once again,
as if there were genuine separateness assumed.
enlightenment’s existence is:
as if it were the epitome of paradigm,
as if it is the resolution of the koan of time,
as if where in the universe, where there is no mind.
enlightenment can find no facet of distraction,
no means of definition,
no reasoning for a directedness,
no presence for the predicament of personage
no language for the expression of its energetic truth.
where truth has no mediumship in time,
enlightenment has no witnessing to verbs,
no honoring of nouns,
no positions of construction,
no measurable means,
disrobes from language,
from the guile of meaning,
and from the wings and updrafts of understanding.
enlightenment lives the life of being,
beyond a verb
beyond evidential truth,
beyond explainable means,
beyond results or contingencies.
enlightenment has closed its contemplative eyes,
ceasing to journeyman sense,
becoming the isness,
and is impenetrable without complete immersion.
living for the art of description
is not enlightenment’s payback means.
everything that I have and am aware of
is a pittance by observation’s grasp.
a squeeze at attention’s clutching,
and yet a firm grip on the denial of its absolute.
where this description, as reverence,
is a form of involuntary cursing,
naming it is a mockery of its living truth.
enlightenment has no positions of occupancy
no gates of passage,
no thoughtform trails,
no conclusion of errors, airs or heirs.
consciousness is the tongue of an active mind
where mindfulness lives in enlightenment’s absence.
enlightenment is within the beyond
but then also, beyond the within.
to hold onto enlightenment is to withhold from it,
for holding is an expression of absence
and then, as if in consciousness, reconnection to it.
enlightenment is all of this without the contention,
the construction, the concepts, or the clarity.
enlightenment is take off your common sense shoes,
and leave them at the front door,
leave the front door of your understanding open,
walk through the structure of your mindfulness
as if it were a place in a consciousness environment,
transcend the consciousness environment
for a sense of unabated awareness,
leave the awareness for a break-free concept
beyond mind-full-ness,
leave the mind for a sense of soul-driven spirit,
leave the spirit for the coherence of oneness,
leave the acknowledgment of oneness
to be one of enlightenment.
in enlightenment, you go no further,
everything is here
but here has no locational means,
and location has no presence of mind.
so the koan in passing, as for right now is:
what did enlighten meant?
No comments:
Post a Comment