Skip to main content

eye-witness at 9 summer parties complex: How some body becomes a mind only 'body'

 

The story takes place in the 9 story apartment complex, called "9 summer parties".  

Rupert Kaya lives on the third floor.  

Denny is the next door neighbor of Rupert. 

Denny is deaf.

Cameron lives in the apartment directly across the hall from Rupert.

Cameron has a doorbell ringer video camera which is constantly recording video, and a view of not only the entrance to his apartment, but that of his neighbor Rupert. 

Frank lives on the fourth floor. He's good friends with Rupert, and often stops by to visit him on the third floor.

Between the fourth and fifth floor, is an exercise fitness center, some shops, and other community services for all the residents in the building.

The architecture and floor design for the first four floors, compared to floors 5 through 9, are radically different. 

And then there is Abby Dahmer who lives in the penthouse, an heiress to a fortune. 

Her personality has been described as dry and humorless. 

Her purpose in life, is to promote her philosphy whose main tenet is that the mind is the only thing that is real, and the physical body can only be experienced as a stream of mind moments. 

Rupert disagreed with her philosophy, but they were civil and seemed to coexist peacefully, though Rupert on more than one occasion had to find ways to physically escape from Abby's overzealous insistence on the correctness of her beliefs.

Rupert Kaya is described by all who know him as someone who is genuinely peaceful and content, the guy who lives happily on the third floor of the 9 story complex. 

He is not just happy when he's sitting down relaxed, he's happy in all of his activities, all the time, even in his dreams while asleep.

Then the unthinkable happened. One could not even place or connect their mind to what happened next.

While Abby and Rupert were chatting in the exercise fitness center, they got into an argument.

Abby Dahmer, as usual was insisting that the mind is the only real thing, the physical is not real.

Rupert replied, "you can believe what you want, but from a practical standpoint, there are very concrete practical delineations between happiness experienced through the body, and happiness experienced in the mind."

They weren't covering any new ground, but something caused Abby Dahmer to lose her mind that day.

She stealthily followed Rupert Kaya back to the 3rd floor of his apartment, made her way in through the unlocked door and murdered him.

Abby Dahmer murdered Rupert Kaya in cold blood on the 3rd floor of the 9 summer parties apartment complex. 

There were three eyewitnesses.

Frank from fourth floor was on the 3rd floor to visit Rupert and saw with his own eyes some of the action while the murder was taking place.

Denny who is deaf, Rupert's next door neighbor, heard distinctive murder sounds, as well as the distinctive voices of Abby and Rupert.

Cameron's front door ringer video camera, recorded some of the incriminating action.

Since Abby Dahmer was rich and famous, this murder trial was highly scrutinized by the world.

All the legal experts were unanimous that the case was open and shut, Abby was guilty of first degree murder.

Until two things happened.

The judge assigned to the case was Ajun Braun.

Abby Dahmer announced she had retained the services of defense attorney, Sue Otto.

Sue Otto, world famous for her powers of persuasion as a litigator.

She defended, exonerated, and freed some of the most notorious crime lords in modern history from seemingly inescapable criminal charges. 

Sue Otto even legally changed meanings of standard words in the English lexicon, including new contexts for how the word 'love' is used legally.  

She is loved by her followers, and crime lords who can afford her services. 


The trial seemed to be proceeding as the legal experts had predicted, heading towards a guilty verdict for Abby Dahmer murdering Rupert Kaya on the 3rd floor of 9 summer parties apartment complex.

The three eyewitnesses were called in to testify.

Any of the three witness testimonies, on their own, was not quite enough to render a guilty verdict, but the combination of all three proved beyond a shadow of a doubt Abby Dahmer's guilt.


The 3 eyewitnesses again to refresh your memory:

Cameron's video camera had recorded video from across the apartment.

Denny was deaf but he heard the distinctive voices positively identifying Rupert and Abby.

Frank from fourth floor who saw part of the murder while it was happening with his own eyes.


Then defense attorney Sue Otto had a trick up her sleeve.

She argued that, since Cameron's camera video was being considered 'eyewitness', even though he did not personally see it himself with his eyes in real time,
and Denny the Deaf neighbor's audio witnessing of the murder, was also being considered 'eyewitness', even though he didn't see it with his own eyes,

Therefore Frank's eyewitness account had to be disallowed, since Frank had used his physical eyes as the 'eyewitness', and clearly the English language demanded that 'eyewitness' does not mean using our physical eyes, but are instead metaphorically referring to how we 'personally witness' an event with only our minds.


The honorable judge Ajun Braun agreed with Sue Otto, and ruled that Abby Dahmer was not guilty of murdering Rupert Kaya on the 3rd floor of 9 summer parties apartment complex.

Abby Dahmer was free to go.

Ajun Braun also ruled that the word 'eyewitness' in the legal lexicon be modified accordingly to disallow visual evidence from people witnessing things with their physical eyes.

Don't you just luuuuuuuvv (love) a happy ending?


Epilogue

Weeks after the trial ended, after much public backlash over judge Ajun Braun's controversial not-guilty of murder ruling,

judge Braun noted that defense attorney Sue Otto had one more trick up her sleeve if the legal redefinition of the word 'eye-witness' was not enacted. 

Since the eyewitness Frank, had mispronounced some words and violated some minor grammar rules when he was on the stand testifying, there was a very high probability we would have had to throw out his eyewitness testimony on those grounds.  

You see, you can't underestimate the influence and power of grammar, even though the non-expert of grammar fails to see how grammar remotely relates to Frank's physical eyes seeing Abby's physical body stabbing Rupert Kaya's physical body with a bloody physical knife.







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a

1min. video: Dalai Lama kissing boy and asking him to suck his tongue

To give more context, this is a public event,  * everyone knows cameras are rolling  *  it's a room full of children * the boy's mom is standing off camera a few feet away watching all of this * the boy initiated contact, he had already had a hug with Dalai Lama earlier and then asked Dalai Lama for another hug which triggered this segment  17 min. video showing what happened before that 1 min. clip and after, with some explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78 16min talk from Ajahn Acalo with his thoughts on Dalai Lama kissing boy, relevance to Bhikkhu monastic code, sexual predators in religion in general, and how celibate monastics deal with sexual energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2m0TcUib0 The child's comments about the incident in a filmed interview later https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/04/18/643eba5d46163ffc078b457c.html The child: It's a great experience It was amazing to meet His Holiness and I think it's a great ex