After days and days of struggling with rainbows, it finally dawned on me that the struggle itself was proof that rainbows are indeed resistant.
A rainbow is a form, a perception of impingement. A rainbow is an example of a grasping aggregate. This wasn’t apparent to me until I saw the image of a cheap embroidered rainbow badge that made me turn away and “frown at the gross misappropriation of a rainbow.”
What is resistant? Fetters and hindrances are resistant. What is the counterpart of resistance? Freedom.
With this perspective, everything visible is indeed resistant. When walking meditation today, everything I saw gave either a push or pull, no matter how subtle. And the same held for all the six sense fields. I could find nothing visible yet non-resistant. Even the sky was resistant in this tiniest of ways.
Following this perspective to the non-visible and resistant, one comes up easily with examples, such as “freedom of speech”. There is push and pull there as well.
And lastly, to the third, which is invisible and non-resistant, all I can say is MN121, emptiness.
My suggestion of impingement was “close but not quite.” I had had this abstract idea that one could escape the impingement. However, I could not escape impingement in my meditation. The visible impinged one way or the other, calling to intention. And so did the invisible also call to intention. Emptiness did not call to intention because it was empty of intention.
And with this I am now quite content with the Bhante Sujato’s translation:
A threefold classification of the physical: visible and resistant, invisible and resistant, and invisible and non-resistant.
Thank you, Bhante.