chasing the authentic life
is an amusing and thrilling chase
but very, very tiring

vigilance indeed as
this “living the concept of life”
is a very subtle stuff and
deluding oneself
is one of the many possibilities
that can happen…

one is just so addicted to living articifially rather than authentically: a secondhand, dictated, recited, and imitated
existence in which ones life is a belief to be believed rather than a life being lived

It is interesting to consider, when one speaks of living authentically, in many cases, it is this artificial living in disguise. So many build authentic life into a grand idea that needs to be pursued. From there, it dissolves into the chase, the search, the state to be had.

One may live authentically when there is no idea of living authentically.

One must be vigilant.

and the “clarity of that discovery”,
like ones thirst, is very difficult,
if not at all impossible, to convey
fully to another

and yes, like thirst, seeing
death and love and all that you
mentioned are all but natural
phenomena

one is just so addicted
to living articifially rather
than authentically: a secondhand,
dictated, recited, and imitated
existence in which ones life is
a belief to be believed
rather than
a life being lived….

It seems for the general populace, it is too difficult to see death and love, death and oneness, death and joy – to see all of these – as the same thing.

Yet, this true being, this liberation, is a kind of living death. It is the discovery of death through living. And the clarity of that discovery brings truth to the eventual ending of the conscious organism.

Perhaps this is the reason why
a lot of us is afraid of death:
We have no choice but to love,
dissolving like grains of salt
in the immensity of the ocean
of life…

Pardon the parroting,
this reminds me what
the two Ks once said.
JK: “To die is to love.”
UG: “We are more useful to nature
dead than alive.”

The important point is that one doesn’t try to solve the problem for the other person through a certainty of knowledge. Or maybe it is better to say, don’t try to force another to see what you think is right. We can only turn over the meat to observe how thoroughly it has been cooked.

In order to get into the questions on the speaker and the listener, one must really know what it means to listen. Not “know,” but it must be completely explored. One can’t listen if they are hearing with opinion, beliefs, or ideas of right and wrong. One must be free of all of that stuff.

Complete listening occurs in freedom, and complete freedom occurs in listening. It is a magnificent thing.

One can ask, who is the speaker and who the listener? Is there a difference? Is speaking when the movement is there an error? Or is that simply what unfurls?

But I suppose that is a difficulty with the speaker, as well.