Nonduality Spoken Here.

ON DEVIOUS INADEQUACY:

The Unknowable Texture of

Lobster

Going beyond our capacity is very much something we can not do

but it can be done

Using language to express more than is said is impossible

so they say nothing more.

Limitation is then based on certainty

yet the uncertain changes without such restrictions.

For example constant improbability eventually becomes probable

and even expected though still unlikely.

Nobody can think of a question without an idea of the answer

just as the answer provides possible questions.

In this way the unrestricted mind can not engage

in meaningful dialogue whilst providing questions or answers.

Similarly defining itself in self referential thinking

engages meaningful dialogue deleting the cause of its incapacity.

WHO SAID I AM?

All language (I started typing lung gauge) is sacred until spoken.

Some people who limit their thinking by doing so, insist on

precisely this clear lack of clarity.

For others stating the opposite draws attention to the truth inherent in neither extreme. A

good example of this is proving one is right by careful misuse of argument. By assuming that

ideas are interrelated and can be linked we limit the mind to logic, rationality and other

forms of devious inadequacy favoured by those incapable of living in a universe that should

not exist without causation.

Now it is clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense that pound for pound, meaning is not

inherent but implied. I do not imply that I have said nothing, I merely suggest that nothing

can be sensibly said to be senseless.

Now.

As we all know the only solution to this non-problem is an attempt to remain with the answer

without question. Obviously the insanity of a situation that requires madness for its sanity is

as crazy as its opposite. Neither is incorrect. Another example would provide

less of an understanding and give a closer approximation of exactly what remains unsaid. If

what I what I have said is unclear this is clearly the result of confusing confusion with

clarity.

LIGHT

shone in the darkness

and the darkness

knew

it not

As well as the well known Christian interpretations, several other

come to mind:

The Light of the Self constantly shines in our life. We (in

darkness) are unaware of this component. The spiritual process is

moving into the already present Light.

The darkness is also the void or emptying of self. Light can be seen

as the glimmer of self. When the self shines in the empty Self

(darkness) the darkness has no knowledge of self. It remains dark.

Light brings in the darkness and the darkness is aware of the Light

(by not knowing it has to acknowledge what it knows not)

The Light of Self Knowledge enters the unknowing (darkness) and the

darkness is illumined. The darkness knows it is not 'The Light' but

also trancends the activation into postive negation (knew it not)

It is 'unaware' of its own knowing (knew it not)