Throwback/Lewis

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

> I liftedthe TV set. That disagreed with my back.

> I threw my back, as it is called it. Now, I can play

> with pain. Question its nature, its effect on the

> lucid energy in the background. Does it occlude it?

> Does it make ripples, like a stone tossed at a

> pond? Pain is there, like a gorilla at the dinner table.

> It can't be ignored. Pretending is not there, doesn't

> work. )

>

> Pete

 

not-yet-defined; > Form is born

not-yet-mentioned > name originates

phenomena > " words "

sensation > " pain "

hearing > heard ( " pretending " or......)

 

P: As soon as we discern this from that, impermanence

is born; as soon as we utter a name, illusion solidifies and

the ghost of permanency haunts the mind.

 

 

Lewis

 

 

Smile.

Hi Lewis,

 

This reminds me how often, in this business, we forget

the body, live as if it wasn't there, until it abruptly,

and often painfully, the cannon ball we drag gets snared.

 

There was a German, or Dutch Buddhist who was a

master of vipassana (mindfulness). He wrote a few

excellent books on the practice of mindfulness. His

Buddhist name was Sunyata, something or other,

if I recall right.

 

Guess how he died?... Yep... he was run over by a car.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Pedsie2 wrote:

> > I liftedthe TV set. That disagreed with my back.

> > I threw my back, as it is called it. Now, I can play

> > with pain. Question its nature, its effect on the

> > lucid energy in the background. Does it occlude it?

> > Does it make ripples, like a stone tossed at a

> > pond? Pain is there, like a gorilla at the dinner table.

> > It can't be ignored. Pretending is not there, doesn't

> > work. )

> >

> > Pete

>

> not-yet-defined; > Form is born

> not-yet-mentioned > name originates

> phenomena > " words "

> sensation > " pain "

> hearing > heard ( " pretending " or......)

>

> P: As soon as we discern this from that, impermanence

> is born; as soon as we utter a name, illusion solidifies and

> the ghost of permanency haunts the mind.

>

>

> Lewis

>

>

> Smile.

> Hi Lewis,

>

> This reminds me how often, in this business, we forget

> the body, live as if it wasn't there, until it abruptly,

> and often painfully, the cannon ball we drag gets snared.

>

> There was a German, or Dutch Buddhist who was a

> master of vipassana (mindfulness). He wrote a few

> excellent books on the practice of mindfulness. His

> Buddhist name was Sunyata, something or other,

> if I recall right.

>

> Guess how he died?... Yep... he was run over by a car.

>

> Pete

 

Hi Pete,

 

" Cars, bricks, guns, knives, sticks, stones, bombs, falls, disease.... "

All these can be used to or can happen to a body and do it in. " Fini. "

 

That is a run of the mill " reality " recreated by Pete from some

material gathered elswhere. It is a gross reality thrown back. Car

runs over man. Man dies. Car kills man. I suppose that you consider

that recreation of something from something from something is

something " real " or " true. " and therefore impressive and convincing

and certain, even dominating and powerful and decisive in this

business. Physical object kills man.

 

Of course, this is quite inaccurate when compared to more informed

opinions about the conceived, created, socially disocursed, taken for

granted, run of the mill physical reality.

 

Hysterical scientific discourse, which is best used when discussing

gross creations of physical reality, declares that, at the physical

level, cars do not kill, nor do any objects kill bodies. A car never

kills any body. It is more appropriate and closer to the " truth " of

proffered and gross versions of created physical reality to say that

the man run over by the car died of the injuries sustained in the

accident and not directly by the car. Many people get run over and do

not die. " Instantaneously " or not makes no difference. In this sense,

the car did not kill the man. To say so is a " mis-take " using the

conceptual perspective of material physical reality that is held in

this case.

 

Shame on you. :-).

 

Now of course, the man did not die of his injuries as any pathologist

and biochemist will tell you. And the physicist will tell you a

different story of how the man died. And, in all these cases, it

certainly was not by the car! Grossly conventional versions vs more

subtle versions of how dat bodi di. Take your pick, or keep em all or

throw them all out, which is each individual's fancy, not Pete's

decision, it is said, thought protests to contrary invariably arise.

Incorrigibility?

 

Now we can back it all the way up in reverse, to the car and the man,

and how did the car and man identified come to be from the " swirls of

non-defined waves of phenomena " that no-one has the foggiest idea of

or how it comes to be in the form of a man or car. Uncle Nagarjuna has

said it well from your neck of the woods.

 

And what can be realized...or not.

 

All of it is created, imagined, experienced, worked with and dealt

with as it goes and told as stories upon stories that are, as in your

case, taken for granted, or perhaps but not certain may be firmly

believed to be " true " (thought so clearly mis-taken from other created

formulated material realities) because, perhaps of, of the limits of

individul imagination or attachment to labled sensations. Who or what

knows? :-).

 

You cry impermanence! and then solidity! as real. Is this duality in

disguise? Join them, for they are one and the same. Or perhaps you

love throwing wrenches in machinery made of air....Look it at it fly!

 

:-D

 

Lewis