anon replys to anon. hahaha. Please see below:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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/
