Pathology of Illusion

 

Is suffering reality or illusion?

 

Is pain the same as suffering?

 

v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v

 

 

 

Erica:

“…God allows the infliction of suffering on other beings”

 

Wim:

Nice try, but sorry, that is not so, GOD IS NOT SO, wrong theology, philosophy, wrong religion.

 

What follows is not about pain, physical pain, it is about suffering.

 

Suffering is a human condition as in ’conditional’.

Suffering is the epitome of conditionality, IF....THEN ad infinitum.

Suffering is conditioned, repeated sentencing, verbalisation, mentalization.

Suffering is conditioned, it is therefore illusion, treated as though it can be more real than reality, but only under threats of conditional punishment by a powermonger.

 

Illusion does not affect BEING (I AM THAT I AM).

 

Illusion only threatens BEING hypothetically. As in, “If you don’t do this or that, then I will kill you”

Suffering is illusion, ‘ifibility’ ‘IFIBILITY’.  

 

Illusion does not exist, that's why it is called illusion.

 

Suffering has no reality, that's WHY we CAN get rid of suffering, we cannot get rid of reality.Reality does not include suffering. Suffering is the threatened pain of not being allowed to throw off illusion.

 

BEING (plural and singular like the word 'cattle') does not undergo suffering. Human BEINGS do NOT undergo suffering. The human 'condition' suffers the 'illusive human', the power monger with only illusive power. Power is a construct. Power mongers hide behind constructs and structures of award and punishment. Tell a power monger that you will not stand for their games. E.g. you ultimately are willing to die for truth, love and reality and their structures, constructs and illusive power(s) will go 'poof'. OK, it is a bit more complex, but that is only the complexity of excuses that one uses to not stand up for oneself once and for all. The power monger inflicts illusive illusions as sentences and judgements (If..., then... Award and punishment) on conceptual humans (the threatened human).

 

EVERYTHING except for the conceptual human persona is untouchable by suffering. The persona was invented to give laws clout (judgements, sentencing).

 

Get what the Buddha said. Whatever he said.

 

It is not feasible on the one hand to proclaim I AM THAT I AM ness and on the other hand hold on to suffering. If you do, your proclamation is just words, lip service. Do not find excuses for suffering as though it is part of reality.

One will realize Being when one throws suffering and all excuses for it out the door, ruthlessly. No goody, goody posturing allowed, no 'feeling sorry for'.

Erica, I know, you lost me there before. Compassion and Loving Kindness is not the same as sympathy, empathy, softy-softy caring: as in "Oh my, oh my, oh you poor...."

(Ever noticed that Mother Theresa is a strong being, not a softy?)

 

Yes, I now will get a barrage of arguments thrown at me:

“What about this and that, the current, past and future calamities, etc.?”

I have personally gone through all kinds of calamities. I can write a book on it, it could make you feel sorry for me.

“But what about that then and there?”

Just stop it, I know the arguments already, I suffered as long as I held on to all the usual arguments.

Then.... something clicked, I heard the Buddha say "....." and I was free, very simply free.

So, do not try to convince me of the reality of suffering and how to deal with it in the usual sorry way. We have already seen that it does not work, etc., etc. The usual way perpetuates suffering, is suffering. Something like iatrogenic disease.

Does your stance alleviate your suffering? YOUR SUFFERING?

 

Do not suffer suffering.

Do not treat illusion as more real than love.

 

Love is all there is.

If it is not love… it is illusion, and that is called suffering.

Love is, truth is, suffering is not.

Nothing can be without love, being is love.

Everything can be without suffering,

Everything can be without illusion,

That is why in fact we can get rid of illusion.

 

Nothing can get rid of love. Love can only be threatened. All threat is illusive.

Without love there is nothing... which is a totally stupid statement, because nothing is not even not.

 

 

v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v

 

 

Eric:

“However these suffering thoughts exist within the mind or imagination of illusion.”

 

Wim:

You seem to have no inkling of the meaning of the words you are using here. Mind is not imagination, mind is not illusion, illusion is not imagination.

 

Your deliberations are on the verge of pathological. What problem is it that you have with the 'mind' concept?

 

I experience,
You experience,
S/He experiences,
We experience,
You all experience,
They experience.

 

If not for experience,

you, s/he, we, you people, they

would not be.
In fact only I experience.

 

The you, s/he, we, you people, they are conceptual...

 

A workable hypothesis until we reclaim, remember and re-realize the original "I AM / I AM NOT". The verge between TO BE / NOT TO BE. The only non-conceptual reality is I, THAT I AM.

But let us not carry on from here because it is exactly here where integration stops and pathology starts.

As soon as the word mind (or manas) is used we are off the deep end.

 

I do experience that you are, and that others are and other things. With what and how I experience... it does not matter. It is all conceptualizing. That is why there can be so many contradictory concepts. You experience, that is what you do...
But then you stop experiencing, you start speculating, conceptualizing, deliberating. That is mentalizing... what you call mind.

 

Experience! Do that first, keep doing that, and do not stop doing that by starting to conceptualize about what or who experiences and with what.

 

You may have read too much and not digested an iota because what you read had lodged itself in a stomach which you happen to call mind. Did you chew what you read before you swallowed? Seems not. Now you've got that lump of knowledge sitting there, putrefying. If you do not regurgitate it and do your own chewing, we will keep chewing you... hangm, chahmg.

 

Eric:

“One understands there is Siva/Sakti, Siva is The Self, Sakti is Maya or the power of Maya, Saguna Brahman, Devi, Iswara, Goddess.”

 

Wim:

Exactly as you say "One understands..." that is concepts, understandings are suppositions (sub=under, ponere=letting something stand up) Get off the understanding, suppositions… be.

 

Eric:

“She (Shakti) is neither being or non-being, she has a projecting power”

 

Wim:

How right you are... now be it... dance...
Be the projector and the projected...
Ever seen those Indonesian Wayang dances...?

 

Eric:

“Kundalini is a Prana, one cannot feel Sakti unless one claims to be God.”

 

Wim:

Nobody has to “claim” to be God. Where in God's name did you get that idea from? What a preposterous and ludicrous thought that one has to “claim” to be God in order to feel something...

We are human/divine beings already with feelings, that is what we are good at, supposed to be anyways... :-)

Humans have more feelings than you may think and humans may be able to feel more than what you may think.

You may have been told that you cannot feel certain things unless... etc. etc...

But that is exactly the problem that you have to overcome... Do not tell us that we can only feel Shakti unless...

You have been fooled and now you do not want us to have what you were not supposed to have because you could not claim to be what somebody else claimed to be...

There is only divine play (Lila), we already participate in that.

 

 

v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v

 

 

What I am about to write here may sound rather strong, you may even totally disagree with it. Well, that might just be the reason why I write this.

I would like to ask you though that you attempt to understand what *I* mean...

 

Usually a reader thinks
that the writer meant
what the reader understood.

 

I would not want you to fall into that trap.

 

You do not have to defend what you know. There is plenty much written on that already and you would just be repeating it. I already knew what you know... as I went through a similar stage as you are in at the moment. One has to cut through that, and one will...

 

'If it will happen, it has already happened' (after Nisargadatta) True, but that is not what this is about.

 

It is pretty tough though, to cut through the stage that you, as it has do with an 'interim' or almost 'pseudo enlightenment'.

 

Nisargadatta says at some point:

"How can time help you?"

 

I'm not in favour of all the enlightenment messages that Nisargadatta comes up with. He did suffer from a pathology that produces a certain set of 'interim' or 'pseudo enlightenment' insights that support the usual illusion/delusion paradigm. I understand that he came through that, but some of it is still evident in his writings.

“Time is utterly subjective and ultimately illusory. The sense of time depends entirely on memory.”

 

I have written before in my posts how time/space come about... not based on insights but based on experience... , direct knowledge, science even.

form=emptiness=form=emptiness

(See the posts on Bodhisattvas.)

 

Someone once wrote to me: “There is in the spiritual process a natural process of healing the wounds from the past, of unravelling old conflicts from the personal history and realising they are not needed to be carried around.” but someone else wondered: “We *ARE* what we *ARE* always, where is the "process" in I AM or Presence?”

 

Wim:

In the New Testament Jesus is quoted to a have said certain words in Aramaic that are usually translated as "I AM". In Eastern traditions words like I AM THAT etc. are used. Jesus said something closer to "I am being" or "I am the being". In fact what he said was cryptic enough that it also can be translated as "I am being been", which comes down to this (and each of us discovers this)

"I am the cause and the effect of my being."

 

There is process in that, the epitome of process.

Of course there is more to that....

 

 

 

v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v

 

 

Simon:

“…the issue is abuse of power by Sai Baba....”

 

Wim:

Yes "abuse of power" is really the issue...

And we need evidence of that.. That evidence has to come from Sai Baba as well...

If Sai Baba's use of power was manipulative (abusive) in order to catch disciples at their weakest moment and rob them of their energy in whatever form, and if that act instilled fear in them with threats of excommunication, condemnation or brandishing if one did not follow the 'master' (in this case power monger) or speaks out of school and more of this kind of threats, then indeed this person has caused immense suffering by forcing illusion-as-though-more-real-than-reality-and-truth onto a victim... In Jesus’ teachings this is a sin against the Holy Spirit and unforgivable unless (but this is my take on it, I maybe too compassionate, but I do not think so) unless such a person personally, openly and publicly (on a large enough scale) requests remittance. Also restitution should be made to the affected beings... The affected and hurt beings have to be willing to find compassion for the perpetrator. Also such a perpetrator has to take on a voluntary penalty to requite...

 

­Home

­v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v