[Buddha-l] Fsat Mnifdlunses?

[Dan Lusthaus]

> I think you missed my point. I said the "it" word but I tried to clarify
> what I meant.

You wrote the "it" word because you think there is something not here now, 
or at least not presently in evidence here, that, should it be obtained --  
dare I say "apprehended" -- would either set everything straight, or would 
be the climactic satisfying achievement. An "it" you desire but do not have.


> In short, I am not wise. I am separated from wisdom. Thus
> I am also separated from reality observed by wisdom and my actions still
> result in dukkha.

Dukkha maybe, but now you have two things on the to-get list: "wisdom" and 
"reality". In your narrative, they are a pair. To get/apprehend reality, one 
needs to acquire special 3-D goggles called "wisdom." Reality can only be 
viewed through those goggles. So, poor Mike sees stuff and things, while in 
another dimension, far away, wisdom is watching reality. And the grass is 
always greener in the other dimension. Mike wants to switch places with 
wisdom and see what she sees. Or at least borrow her goggles for a peek. 
Want to know what Wisdom is watching? She's got you on closed-circuit right 
now, and is watching you dream about her.

Too bad you think reality is elsewhere instead of paying attention to 
whatever is right here before your eyes.

> I don't go to those places anymore.

Good for you. Sounds like you want to, however.

> Were I to use only the words that you use, we would have no discussion.

Were you to own your own words, and not try to put them in my mouth, we 
would have a clearer, more honest discussion.

Dan