[Meditation Society of America] Re: Dealing With Life Meditations/Eglaelin
- --- In email@example.com, "Andy"
> <eglaelin@y...> wrote:saying that
> Hi Eglaelin ~
> Behind most of your statements are assumptions. I'm not
> they are correct or incorrect. But, you may find some measureof
> freedom if you discover that what you take for "facts" aresimilar
> 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'sdrop
> all the hoopla about 'path,' 'no path' for the moment; as yousaid
> later on in the post, you're not interested in metaphysics; that'sbe
> not why you came here; perhaps, someday such babblings will
> pertinent, but not for now).questioning,
> I, personlly found the idea, the thought of examining,
> challenging my assumptions, beliefs, thoughts, to be ratherscary,
> somewhat threatening...it was as if the entire foundation of allthat
> I held True was being threatened, and in that state of feeling,there
> was a deep, very uncomfortable threat which felt like it wassomeone
> 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 Icross the
> street. THAT would have been easy to run from, turn awayfrom. The
> threat that was experienced was very low-grade, notclearly-defined,
> close to the state of feeling mildly anxious and yet, not knowingbehind
> exactly what I was anxious about. Just a kind of "tickling"
> the brain. Very disconcerting and unsettling.assumption was seen
> And yet persistence came about. Assumption after
> (with the help of others who perserved with me) to be exactlythat:
> assumptions!willingness here
> Why did the persistence come about? Why was there a
> to let go of the belief systems which had seemed to keep Andysafe
> and secure for 47 years? Who knows! It really isn't important.But
> it happened.assumptions
> 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 itcan be
> felt that this is done with affection and love - with no desire toself-identity.
> 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 youbuy the
> > blank slate idea does this work. Without the brain there is nothere is
> > identity. Cut out your brain and show me the resulting identity.
> *****Assumption. Can you really KNOW that without the brain
> no identity? Sure, you've been told that (repeatedly) by medicalone
> science. But consider how often medical science has told us
> thing only to do a 180 degree turnaround later on down theroad. I
> am not saying that without the brain there IS an identity. See ifcorrect (no
> 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
> brain = no identity). All I'm saying is that it may not be so.how to
> 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
> > enhance that behaviour and how to mitigate that whichobstructs
> > such a behaviour, etc.world.
> > 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 ofany
> techniques? (Scary, isn't it? to think that the world, and all itswrapped
> 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'svision of
> > the world does not negate the world.them, and how
> *****Notice how some people ignore the suffering around
> some respond to it. If you are so moved to respond, wonderful!do
> so! But see the assumptions behind the thoughts which arisesuffering.
> regarding those who do not feel so compelled to help the
> What are those assumptions, and, can you really know if thestory
> assumptions are entirely, 100% true, or are they simply the
> that you hold to be true. Again: very threatening, as I personallywhat
> found! If my story about Andy was not valid, was not true, then
> was Andy, and how would he function?? (Scared shitlessactually when
> faced with this!)when the
> > SD: The entire hoopla of "Egalelin's world, which ceases
> > sense of "Egalelin" ceases. An occurrence which happensevery
> > night. In the state of what is referred to as the state of deepthe world
> > sleep, when even dreaming ceases.
> > E: Just because I am not aware of the world does not mean
> > does not exist. BTW cognitive psychology has proven that thebrain
> > never sleeps. No matter if my higher functions aresuppressed the
> > meat is still aware of the world around it.world
> *****Assumption. I'm not saying that lack of awareness of the
> means that the world does not exist. But...perhaps the worlddoesn't
> exist while you sleep, right? I mean, when you are in deepsleep,
> regardless of whatever brain functions are persisting, "you"Eglaelin
> are not aware of what is happening "in the world" at thatmoment. So
> how can you be 100% sure that it continues to exist whilst yousleep?
> Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. All I am inviting you to do is tocommon
> SEE that there is an assumption being made here. It is a very
> assumption, shared by several billion people world-wide. Andone can
> accumulate a LOT of evidence to support that assumption, toargue
> that it is NOT an assumption, but that it is Fact, it is "the waythe
> things are." I am offering you another perspective: understand
> statement to be an assumption. That is all.his or
> > SD: There is no static "person" contemplating the issues of
> > her life, checking out alternative methodologies, foreffectiveness
> > in relation to a self conceived tenets of ethics.change,
> > 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 collectionof
> conditionings, and these change moment-to-moment via inputthrough
> the six senses. Thus, no static person.the
> > SD: There is a "personing",.....billions and billion
> > of "personings".............as nuances of that one movement in
> > moment.is
> > 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 theregoes
> > contemplating the non-reality of life and self while the world
> > to hell.that with
> *****Assumption. Is the world going to hell? Can one know
> complete certainty, or is that simply a point-of-view based on anot
> 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 sayingthat
> I don't know, absolutely, that it is going to hell. And, to makeSometimes,
> such a statement would - for me - be an assumption.
> things that were assumed to be very very bad things (andwould lead
> one to conclude that the world is going to hell), have given riseto
> some truly wonderful things (and thus a variant conclusion: theworld
> is NOT going to hell).then
> > 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 canbecome an
> > ascetic, crawl into the mountains, and ignore yoursurroundings.
> > However, there are quicker ways of escaping.Tijuana):
> *****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"which others
> experienced at this moment by the bodymind mechanism
> 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 andthrough
> this bodymind organism.appear that
> Perhaps, at some time, a compelling enough decision will
> I should no longer remain part of reality (whatever thewhich
> 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,and
> that is the only reason why. If the love and caring has not beenconditioned
> 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"?above is an
> > E: Because it is necessary to interactions with others.
> *****(Perhaps you are catching on now?). What you write
> assumption. Can you be absolutely SURE that anindependent self is
> necessary for interaction with others? Oh, I know, Ihow
> know...suggesting otherwise is ridiculous, crazy even! I mean,
> could there be intereaction with others without their beingsaying
> 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 thatof
> there is an assumption there. (Note: many of the "discoveries"
> quantum mechanics appear to be crazy, or, at leastcounter-intuitive.)
> > SD: Don't quote conceptualizations by others, but share what
> > that basis, that sense of conviction which prevails right now,in
> > the biological object, reading these squiggly signs on a PCscreen.
> > 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 replyto
> > my quotings of the conceptualizations of others. You do thesame
> > thing. Everything you have said is simply rehashed atheisticThere is
> > philosophy. There is no evidence of the existence of self.
> > not evidence to the Existence of God. However, there is nodisproof
> > of self or God. In reality it does not matter if God, or the Self,you do
> > has no reality outside our imaginings. What matters is what
> > with it.you do
> *****Assumption. You hold a belief that "what matters is what
> with it." That may be so. I understand that your belief systempsychological
> 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).trauma you
> *****Is this something you would like to talk about?
> I am deeply happy for your survival (and saddened by any
> underwent as I am saddened by all the apparent suffering inthe
> world).made: that it
> Can you see, however, that there is an assumption being
> was your sense of self that enabled the survival? Clearly therewas
> survival. It happened. It is not being questioned. But exactlyself.
> 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 youhold
> to be true. That something...else...may have been involved inthe
> survival. Can you be open to that possibility?SG: good insight - well stated.....
> > Peace On Your Path
> And you, on yours.
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 .......
> If you like the study of the mind, Eglaelin, You might try GeorgPatanjali.
> Feuerstein's translation and commentary on "Yoga Sutra" by
> It is the basis of Raja Yoga. It is very systematic and wellformed.
>devi: i have it on order from the library, i've already read about
> Bobby G.
four or five commentaries, most from indian scholors, i'm actually
thinking about offering study groups in my area..