Well, I think that paradoxical or cryptic way of putting the idea of enlightenment--which of course I've heard before--is almost deliberately imprecise. It's like a word game or a koan to get us to go beyond reason and to snap out of a delusion.

But there should be an implicit distinction there between potential and realization. Potentially, we're all "already" enlightened, but we haven't all fulfilled our potential. Otherwise, we'd all be buddhas already, and there would be no need for Buddhism.

The paradoxes of mystical language are supposed to have some social utility, but that effect itself is subject to moral assessment. Is the mystic obscuring the issue to con the listener or does the mystic have a good faith objective? It may depend on the mystic.