If you told me / if you said to me that "Who you really are is the
space in which the events of your life occur" (that's both as simple
and as succinct and as
terse
as it's profound), I'll likely route it straight into my analytical
machinery to be scrutinized and (hopefully) understood. And
since I've already ascribed a certain credibility / a certain measure
of validity to that with which I analyze life,
my life,
and living, I would (sooner or later) determine that to do so
leads
me to understand what you're saying, or not. And if I don't understand
it, you could tell me again. You could even explain it to me more.
That's all well and good - except ... being told that who
we really are is the space in which the events of our lives occur, no
matter how enthusiastically, no matter how many times, no matter how
brilliantly,
has a very low likelihood of leaving me with the
experience of who I really am, as distinct from a mere
understanding of it.
That's how it is with us
human beings.
You can argue with that assertion. You may disagree with it. But in the
end that's the way it is with us: our analytical machinery leads only
to understanding. It does very little as far as bringing forth any
experience goes - and especially very little as far as bringing forth
any "A-Ha!" experience / any einsicht goes.
So listen carefully: you won't transform your life by understanding
what transformation is. And you certainly won't transform your life by
understanding what you have to do to transform your life, even if you
know
why
it will work (I'm
sorry,
but that's just the way it is).
What I bump against whenever I engage in conversations like this, is my
thrown-ness to absorb the material and distill it through all
the filters, test-tubes, and pipettes of my analytical mind. The
problem with that is: filtering it through my analytical mind almost
certainly ensures I won't get it at all. Because my analysis
is naïve? Because I lack philosophical incisiveness?
No. It's because direct experience / transformation isn't gotten in
that domain. It isn't. You may not like that. You may have a better
idea about it. But none of that has any bearing on the way it really
is: transformation is not gotten in that domain.
Transformation lives in the ontological domain /
context
we call
human being.
If you think there's one domain /
context
for women to transform their lives, distinct from a separate domain /
context
for men to transform their lives, another for people of color, another
for people of a certain
sexual predisposition,
another for older people, another for
young people, it's proof of being unclear on the concept. "There
is only one!" (as the Highlander may have bellowed).
No matter how often you say it, no matter how many times, no matter how
enthusiastically, no matter how eruditely, there is little chance of
imparting the experience of who we really are (as distinct
from our understanding of it) without considering
the context
in which the possibility of being transformed is raised. And "little
chance" is an under-exaggeration. What's closer to the truth is there's
no way I'll get the experience of it fully until and
unless I break (or wean) myself of my habit of defaulting to
understanding as
an access to transformation,
and begin training myself to create the material for myself directly.
There are two ways creating the material for myself manifests. The
first is I get to experience (not know, not understand, but
experience) who I really am. Given that's been a quest of
mankind's for millennia, that's not too shabby. The second is I get to
live
an extraordinary life
(the latter falls from the former).
