The Elusive Facticity of Illusion/Pete

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/4/05 10:54:46 AM, sam_t_7 writes:

 

 

> S: It's already been explained on this forum by a few different people 

> so there's no point in my attempting  to explain it in a different

> set of words.  Your " brain " is too busy to listen. 

>   I will not attach the words  " kind regards " here  as it appears to

> push Pete's buttons and there's no need to feed the beast and make

> one more irritable than they already are.  

>

P whatever you say, kind 'o Sam!

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> > Sam: You said, " In this case, the brain

> > assigned the pain to a nonexistent leg. It projected

> > the sensation to empty space. "

> > S: 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: There you go! You assumed I was clever, and I disappointed

you.

> It happens all the time. A kind man like you, who closes

with 'kind regards'

> must be telling me I'm not as clever as he thought for my own

good. LOL!

 

 

Sam: Not to worry, you didn't disappoint me at all Pete. You

remained predictably on target. The reference to –clever- was

tongue in cheek. My silly humor. [wink]

Don't assume I'm kind. You may become terribly disappointed in

me. You know what they say about assuming.

 

 

 

>P: I'm glad you are more intelligent than I am, that should make my

>job to make you understand easier. If that is what you want to

do, maybe you are only interested in propagating your beliefs.

 

 

Sam: Are you really glad I'm more intelligent than you? No need to

get defensive Pete. For one who criticizes the other for assuming

you seem to be doing an awful lot of that in this message. I'm not

vying for your intellectual crown and the only thing

I'm " interested " in propagating is Nisargadatta's comments. This

forum is dedicated to his comments isn't it?

I couldn't resist asking you to clarify your own comments in

reference to your past comments so I could understand you. I

thought I made that clear. No need to get defensive Pete. I'm not

attacking your intelligence. If your job is to * " make me understand

easier " (your terminology used) then maybe your defensiveness

arises out of an interest in propating your own beliefs?

 

 

 

>

> P: If we are to understand what we are saying in this regard

we must

> understand the grammatical meaning of words such as illusion, dream

> and real, and what we are trying to accomplish when we qualified

another

> word with them. If you say the brain is an illusion, what are you

really

> saying?> That the brain doesn't exist? That it lacks physicality?

That it lack

> importance?

 

 

 

Sam: Did I say the brain is an illusion? It's no wonder you

projected assumption upon me since it seems to be your strong suit

today.

You are assuming here. No, I did not say the brain was

illusion. I asked you to clarify. Based on traditional non-

dualistic/advaita the teaching is that the body is an illusion.

(non-dual terminology). Can you understand why I was confused by

your message and asked you to clarify? I didn't want to assume and

therefore asked you questions. Do you imply that the illusion

doesn't include the brain or is the brain the only part of the body

that isn't a part of the illusion? I'm not sure what your message

implied because of a lack of clarification regarding your

understanding of the brain/body vs illusion vs non-dual

terminology. This is why I asked you to clarify " your " terminology

and belief.

 

 

 

> P: When Maharaj or any one else says everything is a dream, what

are they really

> saying? Words such as dream and illusion take their meaning as

opposed to

> real,

> to say everything is a dream robs the word of any meaning.

 

 

Sam: the meaning would be - that which it is given. When you move

out of the seeker stage you will realize the complexity behind the

dream as opposed to - " the real " -.

 

 

> P: So we must define words such as illusion, dream, carefully.

We must

> understand our

> intention in saying what we say. >

 

 

Sam: That's what I attempted to do was ask you to define your

understanding of brain vs illusion/dream so I could understand more

of your message. No need to now, I understand perfectly your

message.

 

 

 

>P:If you care to define those three words we

> could discuss them, if not let's move on.

 

It's already been explained on this forum by a few different people

so there's no point in my attempting to explain it in a different

set of words. Your " brain " is too busy to listen.

I will not attach the words " kind regards " here as it appears to

push Pete's buttons and there's no need to feed the beast and make

one more irritable than they already are.