There is a temptation towards the literary which ought to be resisted. If this is to be the record of a sort of struggle towards awakening, or a struggle to be free of the illusion of a subject, then it is essential that it not invite being read as literature, whatever that might mean. (And how are you going to resist it? Isn't such a disavowal already a typical literary device? In how many novels does the narrator or a character distinguish the events from 'the sort of thing that happens in novels'?) The literary is a neutralisation of the authentic quest, and this is precisely the temptation: to substitute something else, equally or perhaps far more fascinating - if only you had the imagination. Why would the imposing of a literary frame mean a neutralisation? One reason is that it is a process of projection of all content into the dimension of interpretation, an essentially horizontal dimension, and thus it negates or reduces the vertical. The form of spirituality cognate to literature is that of a culture of endless interpretation, the weaving of webs, or perhaps a sort of ladder but in a carefully mapped space. The highest level of interpretation, the anagogic is excluded because it would terminate the process of re-interpretation. The latter is a social function, A interprets B for C; it negotiates the speakable, belonging in the koinonia or fellowship, and rendering everything in conformity with it so it may be handed over. This on the other hand traces an unrepeatable path and uncovers no general truths; its movement is blind. It may be readable as an unworthy instance of spiritual psychology. Such a study remaining clearly outside of its object.