Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 In a message dated 4/3/05 12:30:36 PM, sam_t_7 writes: > Sam: and what is the brain? I'm curious? How can pain -not- be an > illusion but the brain be an illusion? [Providing you believe the > brain mechanism is an illusion.] I'm not sure what you mean here. > > > P: I didn't imply the brain was an illusion. I stated that all illusions share a basic, but elusise reality, which is misinterpreted as something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > No illusion is pure illusion. Behind every Illusion > is a fact masquerading, impersonating, > pretending to be another fact. The cheapest > trick in spirituality is to dismiss the unpleasant > and the troublesome as mere illusion. > > Even a phantom pain (a pain felt by an amputee > in a missing limb) is caused by physical neuro- > transmitters attaching themselves to the receptors > of brain cells. >Pain is never an illusion, its allocation, > or interpretation could be one. In this case, the brain > assigned the pain to a nonexistent leg. It projected > the sensation to empty space. Sam: and what is the brain? I'm curious? How can pain -not- be an illusion but the brain be an illusion? [Providing you believe the brain mechanism is an illusion.] I'm not sure what you mean here. > > Find the fact behind the illusion, unmask it, understand it, > stay with its naked reality without interpretation, and > the urgency of pain, or trouble becomes pure sensation, > still unpleasant, but lacking the maddening urgency of > wanting to escape. > > Pete > > > > sam: this sounds fascinating however I'm wondering how it differs from the psychological bullshit (your terminology) and rederick you like to preach against. How does your literary stories differ from psychological rederick? How does your scientific rederick differ from psychological rederick? Is it not merely another mask behind the b.s.? I'm very curious to know how you propose -finding- a fact behind an illusion? If it is illusion what is there to find? Am I missing something? Please clarify, but not if that means you will have to indulge in more of your psychologically and scientific literary b.s. because I have read about your utter distaste for that sort of nonsense and would hate to ask you to indulge in something you disagree with. I'm sincerely asking. Your words have confused me. kind regards and warm fuzzies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > No illusion is pure illusion. Behind every Illusion is a fact masquerading, impersonating, pretending to be another fact. The cheapest trick in spirituality is to dismiss the unpleasant and the troublesome as mere illusion. > >Even a phantom pain (a pain felt by an amputee in a missing limb) is caused by physical neuro- transmitters attaching themselves to the receptors of brain cells. Pain is never an illusion, its allocation, or interpretation could be one. In this case, the brain assigned the pain to a nonexistent leg. It projected the sensation to empty space. > >Find the fact behind the illusion, unmask it, understand it, stay with its naked reality without interpretation, and the urgency of pain, or trouble becomes pure sensation, still unpleasant, but lacking the maddening urgency of wanting to escape. > >Pete > > > > Sam: and what is the brain? I'm curious? How can pain -not- be an > > illusion but the brain be an illusion? [Providing you believe the > > brain mechanism is an illusion.] I'm not sure what you mean here. > > > > > > > > P: I didn't imply the brain was an illusion. I stated that all > illusions > share a basic, but elusise reality, which is misinterpreted as something > else. > Sam: You said, " In this case, the brain assigned the pain to a nonexistent leg. It projected the sensation to empty space. " I know you didn't imply the brain was an illusion. That was the basis of my question, but I thought you would have been more clever so I wouldn't have had to spell it out for you. So are you implying the brain isn't an illusion? This sounds to me like many words chasing around after each other in a usage of scientific/psychological b.s. > P: Pain is never an illusion, its allocation, or interpretation could be one. Sam: I have learned something today, which is that pain isn't an illusion but it's allocation or interpreation could be one. Could be? Could? Are you sure? So are you saying that in the non- dualistic nature the only non-illusion pain? That's a very interesting belief system. > P: Find the fact behind the illusion, unmask it, understand it, stay with its naked reality without interpretation, and the urgency of pain, or trouble becomes pure sensation, still unpleasant, but lacking the maddening urgency of wanting to escape. Sam: if you find the fact behind the illusion, unmask it, understand it and stay with its naked reality without interpretation the urgency of the pain will *disappear* into the non-reality that it is because pain is –always- an illusion and its allocation or interpretation is always one as well, making the pain an illusion as well. As long as *you* identify it in this manner you will experience it in this manner. The only reality it shares is the one you as a collective we/dual natured we, have assigned it. This explains why you continue to use words through science to psychologize your interesting belief system – your trying to make some sense of it. It also would explain why you despise the usage of psychology and yet find clever ways to use it all the same. It also explains why you love to ridicule others for doing the same thing you do – you are dealing with the same nature in yourself. I'll let you merrily carry on as you (in your own words) project the sensation to empty space. >Pete: The cheapest trick in spirituality is to dismiss the unpleasant and the troublesome as mere illusion. Sam: that would be the job of the seeker. The non-seeker calls a river and a mountain a river and a mountain. When he becomes a seeker he says there is no mountain and river. When she becomes a realized non-seeker she goes back to calling it - a river and a mountain. What is it she's realizing? Is that where your now headed Pete? Out of seeker and into realized seeker? The river and mountain once again becoming a river and mountain only with a new twist? A new sense of <gasp> understanding <gasp> of the dream? Kind regards. 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.