--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >The main question is still pertenent: > > > > why would one claim ownership, even identity with, the OS > and/or its > > > > upgrades, or the process of upgrading? > > > > > > > > > > Becuase *someone* has/had to create that OS and that *someone* is > me. > > > (or you..) > > > > Really. You created it? > > Yes. > > >I just found it installed. No idea how it > > works, other than basics. > > You have no idea how it works because you still didn't get the > appropriate update version, but no worry, it's coming soon. > > > My hat (baseball cap really) is off to you. > > Will you entertain questions on the OS you created? > > I'll be happy but until you have the upgraded version > you will not understand my answers. > > but I'll give you two hints: > a. The updated version is not adding more software but actually > just removing previous installed bugs. > > b. Once you will be able not to identify with your OS,
Did you catch the Unc disease and start responding to posts without reading them? So unlike you Rory, i mean anon. There is no identity with the OS -- but that does not yet bring the realization that "I'M THE CREATOR." But apologies, i did misunderstand your first post, about creating the OS, I mistakenly assumed you were referring to your localized intellect and mind creating the OS -- in a sort of "reprogram your tapes" New-Age / Be-Wealthy-Now seminar sort of way. The transformation of buddhi to Buddhi and the realization that the intellect is not the driver / identity (which was realized by the intellect is not a final realization -- I would hope. (A intellect driven realization which discounts the view of some/many that use of the intellect is a waste of time in spiritual matters) Your question (implied) is relevant: "What is the relationship of that which is identity to the stuff that appears not to be indentity?" Yes, i have heard the "punchline", I have heard others tell how the story ends. The key is understanding it in a way similar to the understanding of the intellect/driver conundrum. How could that which appears "amorphous" FWFBW (for want of a better word) "create" something as complex and detailed as the "apparatus"? Hmm, this one may take a while. ... (yes i know I put "create" in quotes -- and for a reason). I was pondering that all afternoon. I am drawn to the thought that it has to do with reflections of apparent "detail" within itself, like the illusion of an object that can be created just by light, within a well shaped crystal bowl. 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/
