I’ve recently got some emails and blog comments with concerns about the language I use – how I talk so much about a ‘me’, and how I seemingly imply a ‘person’ who’s doing, wanting, resisting, and so on.

But my writing could only suggest that if seen from a perspective of the universe model. Therein, there’s people—that is, space-time entities with perceptual capabilities and cognitive faculties—that can move around and do things, want things and resist things – and coming from that frame of reference, any mention of doing, wanting or resisting naturally leads one to think of that space-time entity that’s central to the universe model.

But my work is all about deconstructing that model – and once that process have run its course and the model is abandoned, language is naturally seen to, no longer accurately or inaccurately depict an objective reality, but to be a mere poetic attempt at describing the flow of phenomenality.

In other words, any reference to a person is like a reference to Gandalf. Everybody understands that Gandalf doesn’t really exist – yet we can talk about him. We can tell the story of how he helped the hobbits and fought the orcs and everybody understands that we aren’t really talking about something that actually happened outside the screen. We’re simply describing how a particular storyline unfolds within the flow – not making any reference to an objectively existing space-time reality.

If I say “I took a walk and had some ice cream,” I don’t mean to imply that there is a space-time entity with perceptual capabilities and cognitive faculties doing all that. I’m merely describing a flux of sensations, framing it within a particular model – in this case, the universe model, around which dualistic language is built, and to which 99.9% of everybody subscribes.

So when I say: “Sit down and do this,” I don’t mean to tell you in a literal sense that there’s an actual space-time object called “you” that has the cognitive abilities and capacity to perform actions – I’m merely trying to invoke* a torrent of sensations, which, framed under the universe-model, would constitute you sitting down and doing something, but seen from a liberated paradigm, would be recognized to be just that – subjectivity unfolding.

Only if we believe that words could accurately or inaccurately depict reality would we ever concern ourselves with speaking ‘correct non-dual lingo’ – otherwise we’re free to use language in any way we want; because we know that we aren’t trying to capture reality in concepts – we’re merely trying to invoke an intuitive sense of what the the words could point to in direct experience.

(*please disregard the implicit reference to causality – that’s merely a make-believe model as well)