One with everything,
forever and ever, and always,
is that it?
“Is that it”, is,
the least qualified search party
to send out on this questioning quest.
“Is that it”, as an occupancy,
would have to undergo
a paradoxical transformation
as its preliminary initiation
of this momentous process
as if it were an in-time ongoing-ness.
“Is that it’ would have to dissolve
of itself and unto itself
until whatever was the question,
whatever was the goal,
whatever was the need for return
to an understanding had ceased
and all of that,
that is of constituency,
had by natural cause,
refined and integrated
into a wholeness fabric
with no separation as its existence,
no recall or return,
no impetus to seek or sustain,
no identity of concept or being,
and certainly no measure in time
or with time,
nor with any sense of space
or declaration to occupy.
“Everything”, as of the question,
would have no dimensional sense
to partake in.
“Forever and always,”
as implied in the question,
are and were just curse word concepts
belittling with
human self-consciousness imposition
as distraction
by having the status of
reverent, relevant and consuming.
“Is that it”, entered the questioning pool
as if it were a rock
seeking depth-groundedness
and essential-source,
only to dissolve-evolve into this pool
as the medium itself,
fluid as essence, and being that
beyond differentiation,
muted and void to respond,
octaves of in-depth surroundings,
without reduction to return
into a lesser awareness medium.
The it of no it,
is not separate from it
but through and throughout,
without interruption in any way
to the nature, the nurture
and the presence
evoked by and from
the question itself.
Once as again:
Say it, without meaning,
without hurl or the sourcefulness
to stand as separate and hurl.
Say it, with a meaningless
voluminous empty-fullness,
senselessly absolute
and comprehensively unto itself,
complete . . .
“One with everything,
forever and ever,
oblivion,
as always is all ways. . .”
No comments:
Post a Comment