Some quotes I found on Facebook. I thought @inthedarkness might like them.
QUESTION: IS THIS REALLY IT? IS IT REALLY THIS?
ANSWER: NOPE. AND NOT-NOPE.
Two people recently asked me what “this” meant, as they heard speakers say that whatever appeared was “this.” They were trying to find some sort of meaning in the word “this” or see it as referring to some absolute ground of being.
But “this” is not a literal thing, as speakers of nonduality point out. So keep in mind that “this” is just a way to try and express what cannot ever be captured in words or thoughts. And if it ever sounds like you are hearing some sort of final answer, remember that this is not at all what speakers actually point out, which is that there is no language to express what seems to appear:
“This is wholeness or this is no thing as it already is. That’s the miracle. It just already is wholeness. Or the unknown. Or actually, there isn’t a real word for this.”
“There isn’t a word for this but I use the word “this” because I can’t find a better one. But there isn’t a this. There’s a lot of other words people have used… so it’s a futile attempt to try and express what’s happening. There’s no knowing what’s happening.”
“This, what is, can’t be described, can’t be known, can’t be owned, it has absolutely no fixed points to it.”
'“This is it” and “This isn’t,” “You are it,” and “There’s no one here” are all statements trying to express this inconceivable, unknowable wonder, a phenomena, a mystery, but that’s even saying too much."
It’s trying to explain the notion of nonduality, which is some state of being that is allegedly prior to concepts. In other words empty of all the labels and distinctions we have about life. There isn’t really a way to check this though since it’s not like you can measure a personal experience to see how accurate it is.
“Linguistics - When you study words and language, you realize that all our beliefs are based on language and this language can never “touch reality” in that language is just an arbitrary description of reality, posing as real. I believe Miguel Ruiz must have taken a linguistics course as well–as his first agreement attests to the power of language. The four agreements pulls heavily from Saussure and Derrida. Both Saussure and Derrida (and many, many others) did work on how we form ideas in our heads based on language. The gist is this: we have something called a “symbol” in our brain which is composed of two parts: the word and the visual representation of the object (look up semiotics for further detail). These symbols are in our mind and work together to form meaning, then belief. The unfortunate thing is that they are entirely made up. It isn’t real. Our ideas of it aren’t real.”
What “I me me” says is not that bad really. What he doesn’t say is that we can’t have some sense of what is real. He doesn’t say that everything is made up or that any expression of what a person thinks is pure nonsense. He is talking about language when he says, “The unfortunate thing is that they are entirely made up. It isn’t real. Our ideas of it aren’t real.”