Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Meditation Society of America] Re: Dealing With Life Meditations/Eglaelin

Expand Messages
  • Swami-G
    ... Eglaelin ... saying that ... of ... similar ... drop ... said ... be ... questioning, ... scary, ... that ... there ... someone ... cross the ... from.
    Message 1 of 123 , Nov 30 7:47 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Andy"
      <endofthedream@y...> wrote:
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com,
      > <eglaelin@y...> wrote:
      > 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
      > 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
      > to the one that you are apparently on at this moment. (Let's
      > all the hoopla about 'path,' 'no path' for the moment; as you
      > later on in the post, you're not interested in metaphysics; that's
      > not why you came here; perhaps, someday such babblings will
      > pertinent, but not for now).
      > I, personlly found the idea, the thought of examining,
      > challenging my assumptions, beliefs, thoughts, to be rather
      > somewhat threatening...it was as if the entire foundation of all
      > I held True was being threatened, and in that state of feeling,
      > 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
      > 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
      > close to the state of feeling mildly anxious and yet, not knowing
      > exactly what I was anxious about. Just a kind of "tickling"
      > 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
      > assumptions!
      > 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
      > and secure for 47 years? Who knows! It really isn't important.
      > it happened.
      > So, my gift to you, is to point out where you are making
      > 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
      > > 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
      > 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
      > others.
      > > 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
      > > such a behaviour, etc.
      > > E: So tell me what is your technique for dealing with the
      > *****Assumption. Perhaps there is no technique needed for
      > with the world. Maybe "dealing" just happens, regardless of
      > 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
      > > 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!
      > so! But see the assumptions behind the thoughts which arise
      > regarding those who do not feel so compelled to help the
      > What are those assumptions, and, can you really know if the
      > assumptions are entirely, 100% true, or are they simply the
      > 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
      > 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
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > means that the world does not exist. But...perhaps the world
      > exist while you sleep, right? I mean, when you are in deep
      > regardless of whatever brain functions are persisting, "you"
      > 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
      > 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
      > assumption, shared by several billion people world-wide. And
      one can
      > accumulate a LOT of evidence to support that assumption, to
      > that it is NOT an assumption, but that it is Fact, it is "the way
      > things are." I am offering you another perspective: understand
      > 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
      > > 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
      > there is, therefore, no static person. A "person" is a collection
      > conditionings, and these change moment-to-moment via input
      > the six senses. Thus, no static person.
      > > SD: There is a "personing",.....billions and billion
      > > of "personings".............as nuances of that one movement in
      > > moment.
      > > 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
      > > nothing more than a retreat life. Someone can sit there
      > > contemplating the non-reality of life and self while the world
      > > 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
      > saying that I am happy with the state of the world. I am saying
      > I don't know, absolutely, that it is going to hell. And, to make
      > such a statement would - for me - be an assumption.
      > 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
      > some truly wonderful things (and thus a variant conclusion: the
      > 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
      > > why remain a part of it. At the most basic level you can
      become an
      > > ascetic, crawl into the mountains, and ignore your
      > > 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
      > 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
      > 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,
      > and, it is lived. Decisions are made. Actions happen to and
      > 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
      > is seen to exist. That is why this dialogue has been going on,
      > 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
      > > 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,
      > could there be intereaction with others without their being
      > independent selves??? It makes no sense, right? And I'm not
      > 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"
      > quantum mechanics appear to be crazy, or, at least
      > > SD: Don't quote conceptualizations by others, but share what
      > > that basis, that sense of conviction which prevails right now,
      > > the biological object, reading these squiggly signs on a PC
      > > E: I repeat the message I wrote earlier. Because I said so! It
      > > not matter to me whether you accept my identity at all. I reply
      > > my quotings of the conceptualizations of others. You do the
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > world).
      > Can you see, however, that there is an assumption being
      made: that it
      > was your sense of self that enabled the survival? Clearly there
      > survival. It happened. It is not being questioned. But exactly
      > what enabled that survival? You assert it was your sense of
      > That may be so. But can you see that it is part of a story you
      > to be true. That something...else...may have been involved in
      > survival. Can you be open to that possibility?
      > > Peace On Your Path
      > And you, on yours.

      SG: good insight - well stated.....

      trauma is held in place by holding a self image that
      continues within the poor me drama....... events happen to a
      form or a self image ..... once that form is known to be simply a
      vehicle and an identity is known to be conditionings surrounding
      an attachment to form ------ when that falls away then the
      lingering abused mentality falls away .......
    • devi@pacific.net
      ... Patanjali. ... formed. ... devi: i have it on order from the library, i ve already read about four or five commentaries, most from indian scholors, i m
      Message 123 of 123 , Dec 17, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > If you like the study of the mind, Eglaelin, You might try Georg
        > Feuerstein's translation and commentary on "Yoga Sutra" by
        > It is the basis of Raja Yoga. It is very systematic and well
        > Love,
        > Bobby G.

        devi: i have it on order from the library, i've already read about
        four or five commentaries, most from indian scholors, i'm actually
        thinking about offering study groups in my area..
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.