Language :: One With & What Is
Subtle I
Up to F9 (deity mysticism) in Ken Wilber's framework, there is a sense of an "I" - although subtle towards the end. Here - at least in my experience - there is a clear experience of Existence (God, Spirit, Buddha Mind) being completely beyond and including any and all polarities, including that of seer and seen. But there is also a subtle identification as the seer.
The language here tends to reflect this. We may say "one with all", "no separation" and so on, all indications of a seer-seen split as well as a realization that they both are aspects of the same. There is no separation, yet there is - subtly.
No I
When what is awakens to itself as having no "I" anywhere, the language changes. Here, we may say "what is", "as it is" and so on - all the annoying phrases we know from adveita and similar nondual traditions. Annoying, because they are indeed the most accurate way to express it, and yet makes little sense for those who are not there themselves.
Subtle?
Of course, at F9 and earlier, it may seem a subtle split into seer and seen, a subtle identification with an "I". It is mostly drowned out by the experience of it all being Spirit, God, Buddha Mind, by the amazement of discovering this.
But having passed through the gateless gate, into the nondual, it is not so subtle. It is actually a quite clear and unmistakable difference.
The ground is revealed in a clearer way - now literally as emptiness, and with all phenomena arising from, within and as emptiness. And it is completely and effortlessly clear that there is indeed no "I" anywhere, no segment of what is has an inherent "I" in it. Not even that which previously seemed so compelling as "I" such as first the human self, and then the seer - the eye of spirit.