--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi Eglaelin ~
Behind most of your statements are assumptions. I'm not saying that
they are correct or incorrect. But, you may find some measure of
freedom if you discover that what you take for "facts" are
assumptions on your part.
Let's put it on the personal level, OK. I have walked a path similar
to the one that you are apparently on at this moment. (Let's drop
all the hoopla about 'path,' 'no path' for the moment; as you said
later on in the post, you're not interested in metaphysics; that's
not why you came here; perhaps, someday such babblings will be
pertinent, but not for now).
I, personlly found the idea, the thought of examining, questioning,
challenging my assumptions, beliefs, thoughts, to be rather scary,
somewhat threatening...it was as if the entire foundation of all that
I held True was being threatened, and in that state of feeling, there
was a deep, very uncomfortable threat which felt like it was
amounting to personal annihilation.
It wasn't experienced as acutely as the immediate threat of someone
holding a gun to my head, or a car heading towards me as I cross the
street. THAT would have been easy to run from, turn away from. The
threat that was experienced was very low-grade, not clearly-defined,
close to the state of feeling mildly anxious and yet, not knowing
exactly what I was anxious about. Just a kind of "tickling" behind
the brain. Very disconcerting and unsettling.
And yet persistence came about. Assumption after assumption was seen
(with the help of others who perserved with me) to be exactly that:
Why did the persistence come about? Why was there a willingness here
to let go of the belief systems which had seemed to keep Andy safe
and secure for 47 years? Who knows! It really isn't important. But
So, my gift to you, is to point out where you are making assumptions
that may be obscuring something that is to be seen. I hope it can be
felt that this is done with affection and love - with no desire to
challenge your personal belief systems (that will either happen
within you or not; but I am done challening you).
> SD: Incidentally the brain, is an organ,........completely
> responsive, as per an innate conditioning-in-the-
> moment,.........but cannot produce any response on it's own.
> In case, you were thinking of the brain in terms of a self-identity.
> E: On which theory do you base this hypotheses. Only if you buy the
> blank slate idea does this work. Without the brain there is no
> identity. Cut out your brain and show me the resulting identity.
*****Assumption. Can you really KNOW that without the brain there is
no identity? Sure, you've been told that (repeatedly) by medical
science. But consider how often medical science has told us one
thing only to do a 180 degree turnaround later on down the road. I
am not saying that without the brain there IS an identity. See if
you can hear that in my words to you. All I am saying is this: an
assumption is being made here. What you assert may be correct (no
brain = no identity). All I'm saying is that it may not be so.
There is a possibility that it is not so.
> SD: Why this focus, on the self, on the "me-Egalelin"?
> E: Because it is necessary for interacting with the world and
> SD: Without "me-Egalelin",.............there is no "Egalelin's
> world", ........the world of it's loved ones, unloved ones, the
> world of issues to be resolved, the world in which the debate
> exists as to what is the ethical behaviour in that world and how to
> enhance that behaviour and how to mitigate that which obstructs
> such a behaviour, etc.
> E: So tell me what is your technique for dealing with the world.
*****Assumption. Perhaps there is no technique needed for dealing
with the world. Maybe "dealing" just happens, regardless of any
techniques? (Scary, isn't it? to think that the world, and all its
dealings, might go on, just fine, without "your" input. I certainly
found it to be scary, initially; I felt like "I" - Andy - was being
devalued in that understanding.)
> Do you simply ignore the suffering around you while being wrapped
> in you own world of illusion? The negation of Eglaelin's vision of
> the world does not negate the world.
*****Notice how some people ignore the suffering around them, and how
some respond to it. If you are so moved to respond, wonderful! do
so! But see the assumptions behind the thoughts which arise
regarding those who do not feel so compelled to help the suffering.
What are those assumptions, and, can you really know if the
assumptions are entirely, 100% true, or are they simply the story
that you hold to be true. Again: very threatening, as I personally
found! If my story about Andy was not valid, was not true, then what
was Andy, and how would he function?? (Scared shitless actually when
faced with this!)
> SD: The entire hoopla of "Egalelin's world, which ceases when the
> sense of "Egalelin" ceases. An occurrence which happens every
> night. In the state of what is referred to as the state of deep
> sleep, when even dreaming ceases.
> E: Just because I am not aware of the world does not mean the world
> does not exist. BTW cognitive psychology has proven that the brain
> never sleeps. No matter if my higher functions are suppressed the
> meat is still aware of the world around it.
*****Assumption. I'm not saying that lack of awareness of the world
means that the world does not exist. But...perhaps the world doesn't
exist while you sleep, right? I mean, when you are in deep sleep,
regardless of whatever brain functions are persisting, "you" Eglaelin
are not aware of what is happening "in the world" at that moment. So
how can you be 100% sure that it continues to exist whilst you sleep?
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. All I am inviting you to do is to
SEE that there is an assumption being made here. It is a very common
assumption, shared by several billion people world-wide. And one can
accumulate a LOT of evidence to support that assumption, to argue
that it is NOT an assumption, but that it is Fact, it is "the way
things are." I am offering you another perspective: understand the
statement to be an assumption. That is all.
> SD: There is no static "person" contemplating the issues of his or
> her life, checking out alternative methodologies, for effectiveness
> in relation to a self conceived tenets of ethics.
> E: It does not matter if there is no static person. However,
> according to Andy there is.
*****Please. Show me where I ever said that. I believe all that I
wrote was: there is change, always. If there is constant change,
there is, therefore, no static person. A "person" is a collection of
conditionings, and these change moment-to-moment via input through
the six senses. Thus, no static person.
> SD: There is a "personing",.....billions and billion
> of "personings".............as nuances of that one movement in the
> However, all this to you may be pure baloney,.................so
> let's leave all this aside.
> E: You got me there. I believe that such round-about thinking is
> nothing more than a retreat life. Someone can sit there
> contemplating the non-reality of life and self while the world goes
> to hell.
*****Assumption. Is the world going to hell? Can one know that with
complete certainty, or is that simply a point-of-view based on a
story one is holding about "how the world *should* be"? I'm not
saying that I am happy with the state of the world. I am saying that
I don't know, absolutely, that it is going to hell. And, to make
such a statement would - for me - be an assumption. Sometimes,
things that were assumed to be very very bad things (and would lead
one to conclude that the world is going to hell), have given rise to
some truly wonderful things (and thus a variant conclusion: the world
is NOT going to hell).
> Of course, according to your thinking there is no reality. I will
> ask you the same question I asked Andy. If there is no reality then
> why remain a part of it. At the most basic level you can become an
> ascetic, crawl into the mountains, and ignore your surroundings.
> However, there are quicker ways of escaping.
*****Sure! There is a novel called "God Is A Bullet," the title of
which comes from a poem (found on rock wall outside a bar in Tijuana):
God is a bullet
Straigt to the head
You start feeling better
The moment you're dead.
What Sandeep, and I, have been suggesting is that whether or not
there is (or is not) "reality," there is a "I-am-here-ness"
experienced at this moment by the bodymind mechanism which others
refer to as "Andy." That "I-am-here-ness" is very real to me, Andy,
and, it is lived. Decisions are made. Actions happen to and through
this bodymind organism.
Perhaps, at some time, a compelling enough decision will appear that
I should no longer remain part of reality (whatever the
hell "reality" is! Hahaha!!!!). At the moment, what is felt here is
a deep, moving feeling, a yearning, to help ease the confusion which
is seen to exist. That is why this dialogue has been going on, and
that is the only reason why. If the love and caring has not been
felt, then so be it; but that is what is moving this interchange.
> SD: I reiterate, the same essential question,..............what is
> the basis on which lies the conviction, of the existential reality
> of an independent self in the manifested psycho-somatic conditioned
> object which society has labeled "Egalelin"?
> E: Because it is necessary to interactions with others.
*****(Perhaps you are catching on now?). What you write above is an
assumption. Can you be absolutely SURE that an independent self is
necessary for interaction with others? Oh, I know, I
know...suggesting otherwise is ridiculous, crazy even! I mean, how
could there be intereaction with others without their being
independent selves??? It makes no sense, right? And I'm not saying
it is true, see? All I am inviting you to do is to recognize that
there is an assumption there. (Note: many of the "discoveries" of
quantum mechanics appear to be crazy, or, at least counter-intuitive.)
> SD: Don't quote conceptualizations by others, but share what is
> that basis, that sense of conviction which prevails right now, in
> the biological object, reading these squiggly signs on a PC screen.
> E: I repeat the message I wrote earlier. Because I said so! It does
> not matter to me whether you accept my identity at all. I reply to
> my quotings of the conceptualizations of others. You do the same
> thing. Everything you have said is simply rehashed atheistic
> philosophy. There is no evidence of the existence of self. There is
> not evidence to the Existence of God. However, there is no disproof
> of self or God. In reality it does not matter if God, or the Self,
> has no reality outside our imaginings. What matters is what you do
> with it.
*****Assumption. You hold a belief that "what matters is what you do
with it." That may be so. I understand that your belief system
tells you it MUST be so, that it is "the way things are." And that
may, in fact, be correct. But can you see that such an uttering
entails an assumption?
> In addition, my sense of self enabled me to survive psychological
> trauma (sexual, physical and mental abuse).
*****Is this something you would like to talk about?
I am deeply happy for your survival (and saddened by any trauma you
underwent as I am saddened by all the apparent suffering in the
Can you see, however, that there is an assumption being made: that it
was your sense of self that enabled the survival? Clearly there was
survival. It happened. It is not being questioned. But exactly
what enabled that survival? You assert it was your sense of self.
That may be so. But can you see that it is part of a story you hold
to be true. That something...else...may have been involved in the
survival. Can you be open to that possibility?
> Peace On Your Path
And you, on yours.