None but He and I

The goal was never to disappear.

November 4, 2026

A friar in a dark hooded habit, belted with a rope, stands at a stone sink in a candlelit monastery kitchen, drying a plate with a cloth while water runs from it. Copper pans hang on the wall beside him. Across the room a shaft of light falls on a table set with a pitcher and bread and on an empty chair, and a plain wooden cross hangs on the far wall.
The work doesn't change. Who it's done with does.

I. The Ten O'Clock Audit

There's a prayer that hands the day over, and the people who say it at seven in the morning mean it. Thy will be done. It isn't a mood. It's a transfer, made on purpose, by someone who would rather have their own way and is choosing not to.

Then the day starts, and somewhere around ten the one who handed it over checks on how the handing-over is going. You may know the audit. I run it too. Was I patient in that meeting? Mostly. Did I want credit for being patient? Some. Is it a good sign that I noticed wanting the credit? Arguably. The surrender appears to be holding, and there's a small warm feeling about that, and the warm feeling has to belong to someone. It belongs to the one who handed the day over.

That isn't hypocrisy, and the surrender didn't fail. It's what surrender looks like from inside, and anyone who has done it in earnest will recognize the audit. The will was given. The one who gave it stayed.

Call him the ten o'clock man. He's me.

Nobody Crosses on Evidence puts the whole matter in a line: two afternoons can look identical from a street corner, and what divides them is two wills. One wants what God wants, out of love. The other defends itself. That essay stops at the door, at the handing-over, and leaves alone whatever lies past it.

It's tempting to say the one running the audit isn't really there. Call it a misunderstanding, and a misunderstanding can't want anything. Anyone who has felt it knows better. It wants with its whole weight. It keeps accounts. It sorts everything it meets into what serves it and what threatens it, and keeps meaning to start a third pile. It has a voice, fluent and in the first person: this is unfair to me, this will cost me, I have to say something now.

It is real, and the best thing it can do is surrender.

What it gets wrong isn't the wanting, which is as real as a toothache. It's the claim folded into every sentence it says, that this wanting is the whole of me and I'm on my own. The illusion lives there, in the separateness it speaks from.

Neither of them is a second power, a devil with a desk somewhere in my chest. The Knowledge of Good and Evil takes that picture apart. There are two wills in one person, and the contest doesn't end when one of them wins. It ends when the one that defends itself stops.

The other one isn't a bare capacity for obedience. It's a wanting aimed at Someone, a will that wants what God wants because it loves Them, and that sentence has a second person in it. Whatever is past the door, it isn't a quieter version of me. It's me, looking at Someone.

II. The Program

The obvious next move is to get rid of the ten o'clock man, and it comes with a program. Notice the flinch. Decline the flinch. Keep declining it until there's less and less of a somebody there to flinch. Report to no one, since the point is that eventually there won't be anyone to report. Measure progress by how quiet it's getting.

The program isn't stupid, and the case for it is half right. An enormous share of what we suffer is manufactured by the accounting: the slight that only wounds because a position was being defended, the dread that's entirely about what I stand to lose, the daily upkeep of one self against a world of other selves. Take the separateness away and all of that goes with it, and that isn't a small fraction of a life.

The separate self is also padding. Every account it keeps sits between a person and what is actually happening. The running commentary, the grievance, the plan, the rehearsal of what I'll say when it's my turn, revised while the other person is still talking. Sit in a hard hour with all of that running and you're only partly in the hour. A good deal of you is in the commentary, which is somewhere else and hurts less.

The self that sets out to abolish itself is still the self, now with a project.

It's the best project it has ever been offered. Every ordinary ambition has a scoreboard someone else can read. This one's is visible only to me, and the number on it is how little of me is left, so the more sincerely I run it, the more thoroughly I'm occupied with myself. A person can spend years getting quieter this way and never look up.

There's a tradition that asked this question with more rigor than I'm bringing to it. The Buddha's question is how suffering stops, and the answer runs through the dissolution of the one who asked. Not a Bodhisattva argues that this is a different question from the one a surrendered self asks. Here one thing matters. It's the patient's question, askable only from inside the ache. A follower of Jesus who asks it in Christian vocabulary has borrowed a question their own tradition doesn't ask.

The bhakti tradition has a story that puts the point where it can be seen. Its hagiographies of Chaitanya tell of Sridhar, a poor man who sold bananas and banana leaves. Chaitanya, showing the form he keeps hidden, offers him whatever he wants: wealth, mystic powers, freedom from suffering, and heaven itself. Sridhar refuses all four. Pressed to name something anyway, he asks that the boy will go on coming to steal his bananas, so that he may always remember the beloved arriving.1

I know which item I'd have read twice. Freedom from suffering is on the list, and the man the story holds up would rather keep losing bananas. The thing most accounts of transcendence exist to deliver is offered outright, and he wants something else more.

So the road out of ten o'clock doesn't run through the ten o'clock man. A self that has been fought for years isn't gone. It's thin and tired, and it's still the only one in the room.

III. He Never Had One

Jesus didn't have the thing I'm asked to put down. Whatever else the incarnation is, it isn't the story of a man who began where I began, picked up the ordinary conviction of being a bounded thing among things, and then got out from under it. The Novelist DM makes the case that what came into the world was the author's own life put into a character with nothing added. Nothing layered on. No separate somebody assembled first and set aside later.

The Gospel of John has Him say it twice, in almost the same words: the Son can do nothing of Himself, and I can of Mine own self do nothing.2 That isn't modesty. It's a claim about where the acting comes from, made by Someone who isn't reporting an achievement.

So there's no testimony of the usual kind. There's no before and after, no year in which the ledger got quieter, and no chapter where He finally learned to stop keeping score, which is the chapter the ten o'clock man would most like to take notes on. Nobody watched Him get better.

Which leaves a problem, and it's yours and mine. If He never had the thing I'm asked to put down, in what sense am I following Him? An example I can't imitate isn't an example. It's a rebuke with a halo on it. And follow Me isn't a phrase the tradition uses loosely.

The answer is in the garden, which is the last place anyone would look for it.

IV. Not My Will

If nothing separate was ever added, the night before the crucifixion should be the calmest scene in the book.

It's the most harrowing. A man who knows what is coming asks not to have to do it. Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me: nevertheless not My will, but Thine, be done.3 Luke says His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.4 Whatever is happening there, it isn't the serenity of someone who was never in the fight.

The usual reading takes the scene as evidence against everything I've just said. Here, at last, is the separate will, surfacing under pressure and being put down. It's the strongest objection to what I've said, and the answer to it is grammatical before it's theological.

Not My will, but Thine cannot be said by one will. The sentence needs two, and it needs them distinguishable, or there's nothing to prefer and nothing to give. It also needs a Thine, someone addressed, who can receive what is handed across. Nobody says that sentence into an empty room.

So the garden proves two wills. It doesn't prove a separate one. The Distance That Love Needs spends a whole essay on the difference, and its result is the one this rests on: separate and distinct are not the same word. A beloved has to be a someone. The twoness that lets one say You to another isn't the wall. It's the standing-room.

The difference has a working test. A separate will defends itself. A distinct will can be given.

Defense is what separateness is for. Giving is what distinctness makes possible, since you can't hand over what was never yours and you can't hand it to someone who isn't there. Surrender is how a will that has lived as separate stops defending and finds it is still a will. Distinct, and able to be given.

So the garden isn't a separate self surfacing and being subdued. It's a distinct will held open under pressure, with nothing separate defending it, and pointed at Someone the whole time. Nothing is being protected in that olive grove. It cost Him anyway. The kneeling, the asking, the sweat, the friends asleep a stone's cast away.

Whatever lies past a will given over, then, it isn't anesthesia. The garden is a man with nothing separate left to defend, in agony, and any account that promises the end of pain is promising what He was not given. It's the same night, without the padding.

V. Nobody Perceives It

What works is embarrassingly ordinary, and a lame Carmelite who did the dishes wrote it down. Brother Lawrence spent the rest of his life in a monastery kitchen and at its cobbler's bench, and what he practiced wasn't a technique for reducing himself. It was company. I began to live as if there was none but He and I in the world, he writes.5 Not as if he had left it. He and I. Two. The practice is a conversation, held as continuously as a wandering mind allows: recalling the mind to God, in Lawrence's own words, mildly and with tranquillity, as often as we find it wandering from Him.6

I can tell you what the ten o'clock man makes of this, since he's me. There's no finish line. You never complete it and stand at the end holding a result; the only measure is whether you're still in it. It can't be done alone, so it can't even be his achievement, because the second person isn't scenery around the practice. The second person is the practice. It lapses constantly, and the whole discipline is starting again. There's no equipment. And the terms are frankly hard to accept. A little lifting up the heart suffices, Lawrence says, followed by the clause that ought to end the negotiation: nobody perceives it.7 No art, no science, nothing to show anyone. Only a heart that keeps turning toward Someone who is already there, in a kitchen, over the dishes, for the rest of a life, and finds Them there each time.

The ten o'clock man files the complaint anyway.

You stop composing your own next line, not by working at it, but because you're listening. The program can't reach this part. In a real conversation the commentary goes quiet on its own, because attention has somewhere better to be. Nobody gets there by attacking the commentary. You stop noticing your own hands when you're looking at someone.

Lawrence puts the order plainly, and it's the program run backward: We must know before we can love. In order to know GOD, we must often think of Him.8 Think of Someone, often. That's the method, and it isn't a method for improving me.

The pace is in one word. If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.9 Not once, at a crisis, with witnesses. Not in stages, with something to show at the end of each. The repetition isn't a rising count. It's the conversation resumed, which is why Nobody Crosses on Evidence can say the fork is available in the next five seconds and has to be taken again after that.

That answers what the garden left open. What's followed isn't a man who stopped identifying as separate. He never did, and that road has no traffic on it. What's followed is what He did with a distinct will under pressure. He held it open, gave it, defended nothing, and said Thine to Someone. That's available tonight, and it doesn't require having finished anything.

I can report one thing from inside this, and it's small. I meet with a group of men who bring what they're struggling with. Before, the arrival of another person's problem was the arrival of a job, and the job had a workflow: assess it, rank it, produce the answer, and underneath all three, be the one who had the answer. I don't do that now. I offer stories from my own life, and whatever else I actually have. Come work alongside me. Come with me to this yoga class. It's an invitation, and they're loved whether they take it or not.

The impulse to adjudicate still shows up in the room. It just doesn't get obeyed as often, and the causation runs the wrong way for the program. It didn't stop because I worked on it. It stopped getting obeyed while I was paying attention to the man in front of me. Nothing was subtracted on purpose. Someone else got looked at.

VI. Who's Asking

So does it finish? Does the identification thin all the way out, in this life or at all?

I don't know. I've come to think the question isn't mine, and noticing whose it is settles more than answering it would.

It asks after a condition of me: my clarity, my quiet, my remaining quantity of self. And it's asked, every time, by the very thing whose disappearance it's inquiring about. A question about when I'll be gone has an I in it, doing the asking, taking an interest in the answer. That's the ten o'clock man, adding one more item to the agenda. A better formulation won't fix it.

Lawrence spent four years certain he was damned and couldn't be talked out of it. What he arrived at wasn't an answer but a refusal to make his loving conditional on one: whatever became of him, lost or saved, he would go on acting purely for the love of God.10 That sentence takes the question off the table. It doesn't say the outcome is good. It says the outcome isn't what the loving is for. Rising After Falls is built on that sentence.

The Sixth Letter says where this ends, and it isn't a state. When by this exercise of the presence of God we are with Him who is our end, it is then useless to return to the means.11 Him who is our end. A Person, not a condition of the practitioner. The recollection, the little liftings of the heart, the starting again after every lapse: all of it is means, and means aren't what you arrive at.

So what I can say is narrow. The identification does loosen. I've watched it loosen in one ordinary room, and I have no idea what governs the rate and no reason to think it's mine to govern. It loosens the way a hand relaxes when it stops being asked to hold something. Whether it lets go entirely, here or ever, I can't say, and I've stopped waiting for it.

Nothing in the next five seconds depends on the answer. The next five seconds are the part anyone is given.

VII. Yet Not I

Paul says it in one sentence, and the tense is the thing. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.12

Read it the way the program reads it and it sounds like erasure, the self put to death and replaced by somebody better. Read what he wrote and the I is still there, three times, doing the writing. Paul is crucified and living, and he says so in the present tense, about a condition that is going on rather than an event he survived. And nevertheless is the word that held the garden open, nevertheless not My will, but Thine. It's the word for what survives the giving-over.

Nobody vanishes. A beloved has to be a someone, and there's no love available to a drop that has finished becoming the ocean. What ends is the separation. What remains is the distinction, which was never the problem. It was the point.

So the goal was never to get free of myself. A self that has been dissolved can't love anyone, and love isn't a consolation prize handed out on the way to something better. It's what the whole arrangement is for, and it takes two, permanently.

One man has given a will over with nothing separate left defending it, uniquely and so far. The Author Is Not a Character argues that the exception belongs to the Author, and it isn't mine to say how often They make it.

The rest of us have the ten o'clock problem. The day was handed over at seven, someone was checking on it at ten, and someone will be checking on it at ten tomorrow.

That man was never the obstacle. What has to go is the auditing, not the auditor, because he's the one who gets to do the loving.

Give him Someone else to look at.

Footnotes

  1. The story of Sridhar, the poor seller of bananas and banana leaves, belongs to the Chaitanya hagiographical tradition. Paraphrased, never quoted. The telling followed here is Radhanath Swami's, The Journey Within (Mandala, 2016), ch. 12 — in copyright, which is why nothing in it is reproduced; the four boons and the refusals are as that chapter gives them. ↩

  2. John 5:19 and 5:30 (KJV): "The Son can do nothing of himself" and "I can of mine own self do nothing." A note on the scripture in this essay: quotations are King James, with one house convention applied throughout — pronouns for God and for the Son take this publication's capital, where the King James lowercases them. Changing a pronoun's case alters no word; where a house pronoun is substituted for the source's, it appears in brackets. The footnotes record the source wording unaltered. Brother Lawrence is a separate case and takes no house convention at all — his editors' small-capital GOD and capitalized Him are printed here exactly as they stand, a fixed text belonging to someone else. ↩

  3. Luke 22:42 (KJV): "Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me: nevertheless not My will, but Thine, be done." Rendered in the body with the house capitals. The scene is treated at length elsewhere in this publication; the use here is narrow and grammatical. ↩

  4. Luke 22:44 (KJV): "And his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." The disciples are found sleeping for sorrow at Luke 22:45, about a stone's cast from Him at 22:41. Luke gives one withdrawal and one return; the threefold going-and-returning belongs to Matthew 26:39–45 and Mark 14:32–41, and the body does not borrow it. ↩

  5. Brother Lawrence, The Practice of the Presence of God, First Letter, in the Epworth "authentic edition" reprinted by CCEL: "I began to live as if there was none but He and I in the world." Quoted as printed. ↩

  6. Sixth Letter: "we must serve GOD in a holy freedom, we must do our business faithfully, without trouble or disquiet; recalling our mind to GOD mildly and with tranquillity, as often as we find it wandering from Him." Quoted as printed, the edition's small capitals included. ↩

  7. Third Letter: "A little lifting up the heart suffices; a little remembrance of GOD, one act of inward worship … nobody perceives it." The neither-art-nor-science sentence is the Third Conversation: "there needed neither art nor science for going to GOD, but only a heart resolutely determined to apply itself to nothing but Him." ↩

  8. Ninth Letter: "We must know before we can love. In order to know GOD, we must often think of Him." ↩

  9. Luke 9:23 (KJV): "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." ↩

  10. Second Conversation, on the four years he believed himself damned: "I did not engage in a religious life but for the love of GOD, and I have endeavoured to act only for Him; whatever becomes of me, whether I be lost or saved, I will always continue to act purely for the love of GOD." ↩

  11. Sixth Letter: "when by this exercise of the presence of GOD we are with Him who is our end, it is then useless to return to the means." ↩

  12. Galatians 2:20 (KJV): "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." The King James has nevertheless here and at Luke 22:42 alike — nevertheless not My will, but Thine, be done — so the hinge is the translators' word in both places. ↩

Tagged Surrender, Practice, Love and Devotion.

Also published at substack.

← All writings