Saturday, March 27, 2010

there IS no entity to suffer

Identification with that("entity") which is suffering experience(as something separate) is what constitutes bondage, whereas "being-this-experience," devoid of entity, cannot be bound.---Wei Wu Wei
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. DJHMarch 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM

    I think this is worth expanding on, because it's the kind of statement that seems to drive Wayne Liquorman crazy - in that, there IS suffering - suffering happens!

    Statements like "there is no entity to suffer" are the sort of classic "advaita-isms" that are sometimes repeated as a kind of endless loop without any real understanding.

    Without quoting like WWW, or sounding like WWW, can you give us your insight into this "apparent" "quandary" - that "there IS no entity to suffer", but there is "suffer-ING"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. tom sullivanMarch 30, 2010 at 12:07 AM

    A key to understanding what WWW is pointing to might be to consider whether "we" are actually separate from "our experience." I had considered making the title, "there IS no entity to suffer(be subject to) pleasure or pain." That would make it more clear that both WWW and I were using the word "suffer" in a somewhat old fashioned way which happens to accentuate its dualistic character. From all this it follows that as long as there seems to be a separate entity, "he" will seem to suffer(undergo) experience as "something separate."
    Did you notice that the following post illustrates "being-this-experience" without separation, without resistance?

    ReplyDelete
  3. tom sullivanApril 12, 2010 at 11:09 PM

    I mean the post about Little Tree with his Granma.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)