Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Hi Dan, , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > Can the animation of a body, and the body > be considered as two different things? > If there is to be no animation of bodies, > how will bodies appear as bodies? It can be observed that a body 'dies', and thus is no longer animated... a corpse remains, still holding the shape of a body until disintegration sets in. Yet this is *always* an "external" observation. Bodies are observed "externally" to die -- the idea "my body will die" is simultaneously an identification, a projection and an assumption. > Thus, reincarnation is purely a matter of insight. > As long as there can be maintained an assumption > of separation, there can be the impression > of incarnation and reincarnation. If using the metaphor of reincarnation, the only thing that "reincarnates" is 'the desire to be', as previously discussed. Form is a result of the desire to have form, to maintain continuity in time. Thus (metaphorically speaking), memory and desire "take a body," but strictly speaking *are* the body. > The instant there is "insight", there is no separation, > hence no incarnation and no reincarnation. No argument :-). > With clarity, there is no arising, as no separate > entity is there to perceive anything arising. Perception 'occurs' without a perceiver. There is no "how," the fact is there never was a separate perceiver... yet perception 'occurs' anyway. None can dispute this. Namaste, Tim 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.