--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > anon replys to anon. hahaha.
================ Enjoyable ;-) p.s. why does God make so many spelling mistakes? anon ================ > > Please see below: > > > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Becuase *someone* has/had to create that OS and that *someone* is > me. > > > (or you..) > > > > ===== > > But why must that be so? > > It's not a must, it's just is ! > > > Akasha does self-inquiry by which he determines that the whole > human > > mind/body mechanism can take care of itself and its interactions > with > > the world without there having to be an entity known as the owner > of > > it > > That's fine what akasha doese, that is what he currently can do from > his ownOS version that he has. > Abraham (from the Torah, Bible) did the same self-inquiry until he > realized me as G-D; after realization he occupied himself in Self- > inquiry. > akasha can be involved in his self-inquiry as much as he wants but > he can take a short cut (or can he not :) ) and do Self-inquiry. > As I said it all depends upon his current OS version. :) > > (I take it back, he has to complete what we call self-inquiry > before moving to Self-inquiry.) > > >, or identified with as the owner. > > > > > Is the concept of an overarching localized owner something learned? > > learned defintely. That is if I understand correctly what you mean by > " localized owner ". > > >Is it a false lesson learned? > > Yes (if I understand you correctly). The upgrades are starting > from "scratch", meaning from self-inquiry and depend > (from the self point of view) upon the self-inquiry learned lessons. > Thee learned lesson are realizations of what this "false" is but not > only. > > > Or could it be true, and still needs to be > > learned? Or did we know it all along, innately, because, after all, > no > > other possibility exists? > > right, no other possibility exists. > It's for your (self) sake that these lessons needed to be learned. > It is you ( small self ) that insisted on that learned process not > ME. > > > > > On what basis is one to decide? If the daily experience is that "I > > exist as a localized entity," then how can such a mind contemplate > its > > own non-existence as an I, doer, knower, etc; > > by negation process, and by learned experience. The mind uses > his own functions to do that. > However the mind is not the issue, he doese his job smoothly. > The *problem* is the ego, who is the obstacle that trics the mind > to false ideas, conclusions and dellusions. > There is were the struggle begins, otherwise it's no brainer for the > mind. :) > > > >except to wander in > > imagination based on the structure of experience that includes a > > supposed I, doer etc. > > > > If, on the other hand, the daily experience is that "there is no I" > > doing anything. Things just happen, as they should. There never has > > been a pilot, though I thought at one time that there was. Then how > > could such a one capitulate to statements like "but there has to be > > someone who ..." > > Because both are true, there is pilot and there isn't a pilot, more > then that in *reality* there are two pilots you and I. ( the small > self and the Big ) > > Duality ? Yes duality up to a point, up to a level, beacuse there is > duality in the non-dual depending on the level of abstraction. > > > > > Are these kinds of disagreements semantic only? conceptual only? Or > > just due to fundamentally different experiences? > > > > no, It's far from just semantic, imo. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
