Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Hi Bill -- Dan: Thanks for your comments, I enjoyed reading them. It seems to me that either there actually is a division between experiencer and experience, or there isn't. I have found that there is no basis for such a division, and no such division can be found. As a result, " I " am nonlocated, and there is no other " I " that can be located. (The birds have their nests, the foxes have their holes, but the son of man has no place to lay his head.) Thus, there never is an experiencer separate from experience. L.E: What if it depends on the point of view of the observer or the person who is experiencing? What if it isn't a matter of truth or untruth or existence or nonexistence? The basic premise may be mistaken: ie, that either there is a division or there isn't. Jesus may have said, " the son of man has no place to lay his head " but how does that validate your premise? And then, when Jesus slept at night, where did he lay his head? Did he stand it up on a box? What does the statement mean anyhow? Perhaps it means that when one knows the truth about life, himself, existence, no one will agree with him, he will be alone in his realization, and cannot agree with those who still live in ignorance or a small view of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 On 5/9/06, epston <epston wrote: > Hi Bill -- > > Dan: Thanks for your comments, I enjoyed reading them. > > It seems to me that either there actually is a division between > experiencer and experience, or there isn't. > > I have found that there is no basis for such a division, and no such > division can be found. As a result, " I " am nonlocated, and there is > no other " I " that can be located. (The birds have their nests, the > foxes have their holes, but the son of man has no place to lay his head.) > > Thus, there never is an experiencer separate from experience. > > L.E: What if it depends on the point of view of the observer or the person who is experiencing? What if it isn't a matter of truth or untruth or existence or nonexistence? The basic premise may be mistaken: ie, that either there is a division or there isn't. > Jesus may have said, " the son of man has no place to lay his head " but how does that > validate your premise? And then, when Jesus slept at night, where did he lay his head? Did he stand it up on a box? you know Larry, your failure to understand is lined with some very endearing wit! > What does the statement mean anyhow? Perhaps it means that when one knows the truth about life, himself, existence, no one will agree with him, he will be alone in his realization, and cannot agree with those who still live in ignorance or a small view of life. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Hi Larry: > Dan: > > It seems to me that either there actually is a division between > experiencer and experience, or there isn't. > > I have found that there is no basis for such a division, and no such > division can be found. As a result, " I " am nonlocated, and there is > no other " I " that can be located. (The birds have their nests, the > foxes have their holes, but the son of man has no place to lay his head.) > > Thus, there never is an experiencer separate from experience. > > L.E: What if it depends on the point of view of the observer or the person who is experiencing? D: The observer's point of view is constructed. That construction isn't separable from the observer/self. That construction depends on an assumed separation between observer and observed that allows time for formulation of views. So, the self is assumed separation, assumed division, and holding to point-of-view as self, to the chain forming " my history " and " my story. " The observer includes an attempt to maintain an assumed center. This center is an imaginary connecting point for a chain of memories, and for wanting/fearing. Truth, as we're discussing it, is noninvestment in the point-of-view --- there is no attempt to ground truth of who one is, or truth of what is, in the observer's point of view, line of history, or desires and fears. It's not an attempt to make the observer and its center go away. It's not an attempt to get rid of anything. It's understanding without any dependence on separation, on distance, on a center perceiving and constructing within time. > What if it isn't a matter of truth or untruth or existence or nonexistence? The basic premise may be mistaken: ie, that either there is a division or there isn't. > Jesus may have said, " the son of man has no place to lay his head " but how does that > validate your premise? Jesus spoke in parables, so you validate directly through your own understanding, not through someone else's interpretation. Either mentally, psychologically, emotionally a sense of absolutism to division pertains to your sense of being - or it doesn't. Either it " makes sense " intuitively, emotionally, intellectually that things really have their own separated existences, and selves have their real separated existences, or it doesn't make sense. If it doesn't make sense, then you understand the limitation of the sense of separation and division. It's not like you're not aware of ways that separation can be discussed - you know what it means when you hear that Mary and Gus got divorced and now live in separate houses. You just are clear on the limit of that concept of separation - you are clear on truth that involves no divisions, even while you discuss what happened to Mary and Gus. > And then, when Jesus slept at night, where did he lay his head? Did he stand it up on a box? > What does the statement mean anyhow? It means that there is no center to your being, that you have no focal point for identification, that there is no location of a self that exists to grasp anything. >Perhaps it means that when one knows the truth about life, himself, existence, no one will agree with him, he will be alone in his realization, and cannot agree with those who still live in ignorance or a small view of life. The story of Jesus indeed speaks to that issue. Alone = all one. There is a difference between being so alone that there is no division of self and other, no sense of lack - and the ordinary aloneness, which is a sense of lack, and separation from others. The first has no contraction around a center, the other is the isolation experienced from the perspective of having a center that lacks contact. The two truths don't mix. You can't serve God and Mammon at the same time. Yet the two truths are simultaneous. This means that investment in the reality of separation and lack has to be understood for what it is, as attachment to a self, to " the precious " as Gollum would say. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.