I Would Be All, Against The Worst May Happen.

So who is it, exactly, that hangs that extra added self onto being? Who is it that questions it all? Who is it that doubts, and frets, and sings and laughs and despairs? Why is it that apparent "people" who have "become enlightened", or, to be pedantic, have seen that there is no one, and there is no one who needs to be "enlightened", continue to paradoxically write and talk about the very thing that cannot be described? Why do they write the endless words, called "pointers" if you're doing it correctly, using nothing but concepts (for all words are concepts) to attempt to describe something that is not a concept? Why do they blog, and write books, and do interviews, and have ironic scraps in email and the comment boxes about the suitability of one concept over another? If freed from the mind, the tool of duality, why do they bother at all? How can they continue to use the personal pronouns if there is no one, no "me", only a deeply fundamental "I"? If enlightenment is freedom, liberation from the self, from the fairy-story of a separate individual named Randy or Charles or Joanie or Anthony or Suzy, why do they sign their names to what seem to be specific ideas of what "it's" like? Why do some of them vehemently refuse to describe the apparent story of their lives, and others freely drop in little anecdotes about the washing up or the school run? Isn't there some certain, perfect way it all happens, and the "enlightened" person uses exactly the right words (pointers) and does exactly the right things and says only what cannot be disputed, for it points to absolute truth and reality? Why do some profess to teach, and others firmly state there is no one to teach, and no one can be taught what is already everything? How is it that there is a paradox between oneness, just what's happening, to no one, and a story that seems to continue, reliant on memory and speculation? Who remembers and speculates? Just how does this ego thing work? Is it true that ego is just oneness, "ego-ing"? If liberation happens, and it is seen there is no one, is it allowed to doubt and laugh and sing and laugh and despair? If there is no ego, then how does the mind/body function? If there is no volition, why do "enlightened" people seem to make so many choices? Who is choosing, anyway? What's it like to be "enlightened"? Shouldn't it be better? Shouldn't it be good? Shouldn't it be a solution to every perceived problem? And furthermore, what's the point?

Whatever questions arise, that is oneness, questioning. No one adds the ego onto pure, unfettered, fundamental being; it may seem to be added, or not, whatever seems to be, is what is. The words are written, not just the worthy pointers, but the tabloid headlines and the signature on the death warrant. No one writes; no one has ever written. No one interviews, or blogs, or nitpicks, or derides, or agrees, or teaches. None of it matters. All of it is beauty.