Why does there seem to be a similarity between the sweetness and harmony of Sahajo’s language and yours?
Because we are drinking waters from the same well….
Words come either from inner experience or from a mind stuffed with borrowed knowledge. There will always be a similarity in the language of scholars. There will also always be a similarity in the language of the sages. In the scholar’s language the similarity will be of logic, the similarity will be of the wording, the similarity will be of hairsplitting.
There will also be a similarity in the language of the sages – of the depth from where the words come. The similarity will not be of scriptures: it will be of the emptiness, of the taste: there will be a sweetness. Logic is not the base of their statements, love is the base. They are not saying something just because they have some compulsion to say something but because there is compassion in saying it. They have something to share. It is more than just speaking, it is giving. If it is in the sage’s hands he will remain silent; if it is in the scholar’s hands he will never be silent.
So in the words of two sages the similarity is their silence, their emptiness. If you listen attentively, then you will hear the same silence arising in their voices. If you don’t listen carefully then you will miss noticing the similarity. If you listen with total attention, if you listen with emptiness, then you will not hear only what is said but the heartbeat of from where it is said.
The language of scholars will be complicated. A scholar’s language cannot be simple because he has to cover the poverty and inferiority of the content with complex language. He is saying something without knowing. If the scholar uses simple language, then it will become apparent to you that there is nothing in what he says. If the language is simple then the words will be understood, and in them there is no depth. So what he says has to be so complicated on the surface that you will never be able to enter deeply into it. And the more you are unable to go below the surface, the more you will think that there must be some great mystery hidden in what he says.
A scholar’s language is bound to be difficult because there are only words and nothing else. A scholar’s language is like an ugly woman wearing ornaments and precious clothing and painting her face to cover her ugliness. A sage’s language is like a beautiful woman standing there, undecorated.
Just as the trees are naked, the moon and the stars are naked, so is the naked language of the sage. It is without any covering because a covering will only make it ugly. No covering could make the sage’s language more beautiful; it is already intrinsically beautiful. Now there is no need for any other decoration; the beauty is self-evident. Ugliness is uneasy: it covers, it hides, it suppresses. It shows what is not there and it hides what is there.