Guest guest Posted August 3, 2006 Report Share Posted August 3, 2006 I am talking to everyone who is a part of my oneness. the false identities and the others... in my oneness, it is about the realisation of all, because all are part of my oneness... also the others. false identification would be to identify with the others, but if oneness is, how can identifying with the others be false ? the real self is not different from the false, awareness is the only thing which seperates them. it may be ignorant to take this little entity....for the real self .... but it is the only identity i have... or do you have another ? Lu Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > Maybe it is of interest for you that i did not receive even one reply of a person who " is the mirror " or of a person who likes to " become a mirror " > > Are you practicing silence? Are you practicing internet absence? silence is the only _expression of truth existing.... the one " who " can't understand " silence " ....is ignorant concerning true being > > Where are you? here > > When " Being the Mirror " everything is a " mirror " even the real Self, is a mirror. you are still attached to this " mirror-concept " .... maybe you could find out why this is the case..... > > So how can it be that no one is a mirror ? the world is your mirror.... you are the world... so...to " whom " are you talking....in this world....? when you reach oneness with the world..... means when you see yourself....in the whole world... means, when you get aware of that energy which give you the light....to see oneness.... means,when you get awareness of not being this little ego- mind ....for real..... means, when you develop awareness for the Real....Self... behind all this...... " reflections/concepts/theories/religions/philosophies/mind/m irrors.... " then there is a chance that you are perfectly satisfied with... Silence....only > > If the primal Being, the original mirror, resides inside us all, why is it that only a few can ever realise it's true nature? it's never about the realisation of " others " ..... it's about your own realisation... then there is no more question about the this subject > > Because falsity is the true nature of the primal being ? > > Is falsity also your nature ? > > Is falsity ignorance and is ignorance your nature ? > > Are we born ignorant ? yes.... entities who are mainly attached to the appearing world.... are ignorant about real being....real life..... and silence > > The primal being is like a mirror, never telling the truth and always telling the truth, always telling a different truth to every creature. > > If we realise that ignorance is indeed our real nature, and that we are in fact the ignorant mirror than how would you describe this nature best? > > How to describe the nature of falsity? the nature of falsity is .....false identication..... means being ignorant about real nature... means ...taking all this appearing little nice and fabuloes things.....for real > > Indeed falsity, the mirror and ignorance resides within each of us, but to make this ignorance, this falsity and this mirror to our highest god and call it enlightenment simply sounds ignorant to me. > > But falsity is not aware of falsity, you are not aware that your real self is indeed your false self are you? the real self....is not this entities to " whom " you are talking..... > > Your false self identifies with your real self naturally, for your false self it is only natural to identify with your real self, but it is not natural for your real self to identify with your false self, your false self is like a mirror, it has no problems to identify with you, it can identify itself with everything, the mirror can identify itself with everything, but not everything can identify itself with a mirror, to identify with a mirror, one must identify with the absolute, with all the eye sees, in the present, future and past... the mirror can identify itself with everything. > > There is no boundary for the mirror to identify itself with, the mirror can even identify itself with another mirror, with your mirror, and so with yourself. > > To assume yourself to be the real primal being sounds ignorant ! yes.....it is ignorant to take this little entity.... " who " has many nice and fabuloes concepts in mind......for the real self > ....you wrote many more words.... you asked many more questions.... i haven't the time to read all this words....and to write many words..... wish a nice ....being....of whatever Marc > Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 On Aug 3, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > it may be ignorant to take this little entity....for the real self > .... but it is the only identity i have... or do you have another ? > > Lu > P: All entities are false. When the One looks at itself it sees itself as the other, and to relate to those others, it becomes a false entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 > it may be ignorant to take this little entity....for the real self > .... but it is the only identity i have... or do you have another ? > > Lu > Does one need an identity? If I am living completely in the Now, micro-second by micro-second, where does the need for an identity come in? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 P: All entities are false. When the One looks at itself it sees itself as the other, and to relate to those others, it becomes a false entity. agreed. while the false entity doesn't differentiate between it's own false self and other false selves, in it's falseness it relates to every false self equally as to it's own false self ... it's oneness is so complete. Does one need an identity? If I am living completely in the Now, micro-second by micro-second, where does the need for an identity come in? Hi Bill if your micro seconds are in itself seperated from each other, and if you live each micro-second as if there was no other, than you don't need an identity, because nothing ever moves you, you are dead. and dead " people " don't need an identity. If you abandon your identity, the natural identification you have with your body, than of course, you die. Now if you ever decide, to return from nowhere and death and start acting in the world of the living again, than you need an identity. The need for an identity arises, when you like to participate in the actions of life again or for the first time ... But of course you can have the identity of no one, maybe there are a couple of people who have the identity of no one but we never hear from them because they are always silent. If your choice is to have no identity, simply never ever send an email to the group again. Never speak a word to anybody ever again ... never do this and never do that ever again... LOL Beside, it is my opinion that you have no identity, that your identity is false, so what need is there to have a false identity ? or are you saying that no one speaks through you ? Lulu How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > On Aug 3, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > > > it may be ignorant to take this little entity....for the real self > > .... but it is the only identity i have... or do you have another ? > > > > Lu > > > > P: All entities are false. When the One looks at itself > it sees itself as the other, and to relate to those others, > it becomes a false entity. > Language as we know it, terrific tool isn't it? Anyway, say that again, please? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > > P: All entities are false. When the One looks at itself > it sees itself as the other, and to relate to those others, > it becomes a false entity. > > > > agreed. > > while the false entity doesn't differentiate between it's own false self and other false selves, in it's falseness it relates to every false self equally as to it's own false self ... > > it's oneness is so complete. > > > > > > Does one need an identity? > > If I am living completely in the Now, > micro-second by micro-second, > where does the need for an identity come in? > > Hi Bill > > > > if your micro seconds are in itself seperated from each other, and if you live each micro-second as if there was no other, than you don't need an identity, because nothing ever moves you, you are dead. and dead " people " don't need an identity. > > If you abandon your identity, the natural identification you have with your body, than of course, you die. > > Now if you ever decide, to return from nowhere and death and start acting in the world of the living again, than you need an identity. > > The need for an identity arises, when you like to participate in the actions of life again or for the first time ... > > But of course you can have the identity of no one, maybe there are a couple of people who have the identity of no one but we never hear from them because they are always silent. > > > > If your choice is to have no identity, > > simply never ever send an email to the group again. > > Never speak a word to anybody ever again ... > never do this and never do that ever again... > > LOL > > > Beside, it is my opinion that you have no identity, > that your identity is false, > so what need is there to have a false identity ? > > or are you saying that no one speaks through you ? > > > > Lulu as soon as one says 'one'....there is identity with and speaking as that 'one'. ergo asking " does one need an identity? " ....is like asking 'does identity need an identity?' it is pure non sequitur and self refering question. It even assumes that there is a 'third' entity possible, that is in observance of the other two : 'identity' and 'one'.......and that this superior third entity is asking a legitimate question, while all the time the very existence of that third entity is illusionary. one needs go back to the drawing board of question posing. and as far as microsecond living is concerned....how do you type, ask, expect an answer and even think about anything in a microsecond? and from micro second to micro second is in fact the way all continuity of thought, action and deed proceed. perhaps within some " seamless flow " of " that which is not " , for and within which are no containing things.....but for the 'things'(identity or one) themselves there are discreet quanta of time, events within time, and 'things' themselves. least this is what most of the boys from Mach, Einstein and the creators of quantum theory up to the present day have theorized........and the proof has pretty well been in the pudding, despite wave/particle duality of light.........even the waves are quantized, so this really leaves no escape route. so: " does identity need an identity while existing in the only way that all things can and do exist? " ......is flat out a self answering question (no pun intended with the 'self' deal here). .......bob p.s................. " MY oneness?.......who's this other me? > > How low will we go? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 p.s................. " MY oneness?.......who's this other me? there is no other me... in my oneness. In my oneness... i am playing every me... i am playing my own false me... ... and i'm playing every other false me... ....this includes every other me. lulu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Hi Bob, " as soon as one says 'one'....there is identity with and speaking as that 'one'. " i agree and disagree with you on that one, just for the sake of it, even if that means that i disagree with myself... in my opinion, ... i may be wrong, since i am false, ... that's not surprising, however, in my opinion there are various 'identities' which need no identity. These identities don't need a one or a body to exist, they just are... omnipresent... everywhere ... For example: The mirror, ... does the mirror need an identity ? If you are the mirror, do you than have an identity ? what about no one.... if you are no one... do you than have an identity ? what about death... if you are dead... do you than have an identity ? if all identities are false ... how can you have an identity ... what about interchange-able identities ... say i'm the dead ghost of nowhere and come from never, i use this body to express my views on oneness, do i have an identity, is the ghost of nowhere an identity ? I agree you can answer all the above questions with yes, these are all, at least in some way identities. what about the conscious internet ? say you build 500 identical self-aware machines, or otherwise, say we build 500 identical clones of BoB. do these clones all have an identity ? They are all bob ... ok. but how can they all be bob ? when we speak of identity i'm thinking of something individual, maybe i should look up the meaning of identity in the dictionery, i believe someone recently posted an explanation, which i unconsciously noticed saying that identity comes from the word " idea " ... Lulu Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > > P: All entities are false. When the One looks at itself > it sees itself as the other, and to relate to those others, > it becomes a false entity. > > > > agreed. > > while the false entity doesn't differentiate between it's own false self and other false selves, in it's falseness it relates to every false self equally as to it's own false self ... > > it's oneness is so complete. > > > > > > Does one need an identity? > > If I am living completely in the Now, > micro-second by micro-second, > where does the need for an identity come in? > > Hi Bill > > > > if your micro seconds are in itself seperated from each other, and if you live each micro-second as if there was no other, than you don't need an identity, because nothing ever moves you, you are dead. and dead " people " don't need an identity. > > If you abandon your identity, the natural identification you have with your body, than of course, you die. > > Now if you ever decide, to return from nowhere and death and start acting in the world of the living again, than you need an identity. > > The need for an identity arises, when you like to participate in the actions of life again or for the first time ... > > But of course you can have the identity of no one, maybe there are a couple of people who have the identity of no one but we never hear from them because they are always silent. > > > > If your choice is to have no identity, > > simply never ever send an email to the group again. > > Never speak a word to anybody ever again ... > never do this and never do that ever again... > > LOL > > > Beside, it is my opinion that you have no identity, > that your identity is false, > so what need is there to have a false identity ? > > or are you saying that no one speaks through you ? > > > > Lulu as soon as one says 'one'....there is identity with and speaking as that 'one'. ergo asking " does one need an identity? " ....is like asking 'does identity need an identity?' it is pure non sequitur and self refering question. It even assumes that there is a 'third' entity possible, that is in observance of the other two : 'identity' and 'one'.......and that this superior third entity is asking a legitimate question, while all the time the very existence of that third entity is illusionary. one needs go back to the drawing board of question posing. and as far as microsecond living is concerned....how do you type, ask, expect an answer and even think about anything in a microsecond? and from micro second to micro second is in fact the way all continuity of thought, action and deed proceed. perhaps within some " seamless flow " of " that which is not " , for and within which are no containing things.....but for the 'things'(identity or one) themselves there are discreet quanta of time, events within time, and 'things' themselves. least this is what most of the boys from Mach, Einstein and the creators of quantum theory up to the present day have theorized........and the proof has pretty well been in the pudding, despite wave/particle duality of light.........even the waves are quantized, so this really leaves no escape route. so: " does identity need an identity while existing in the only way that all things can and do exist? " ......is flat out a self answering question (no pun intended with the 'self' deal here). ........bob p.s................. " MY oneness?.......who's this other me? How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > " as soon as one says 'one'....there is identity with and speaking as > that 'one'. " > > i agree and disagree with you on that one, just for the sake of it, > even if that means that i disagree with myself... > in my opinion, ... i may be wrong, since i am false, ... > that's not surprising, however, in my opinion there are > various 'identities' which need no identity. > > These identities don't need a one or a body to exist, > they just are... omnipresent... everywhere ... > > For example: hi lulu....let's go at these one at a time with a summation of sorts at the end.I'll try my best here....but don't believe me. > The mirror, ... does the mirror need an identity ? > If you are the mirror, do you than have an identity ? yes whether it's 'I', identified with the mirror, or the mirror itself, it exists not without identity. > > what about no one.... yes. once the word...any word, has been employed to be designative of ANYTHING or ANYONE...with or without a body or signified as " one that is not " (nobody)...there is identity > > if you are no one... do you than have an identity ? yes......see above > > what about death... death is a designation of a state. any and all 'states' are states of something and are pertaining to something or someone. thus this too cannot escape it's identity with a state or condition known to and about 'others' or 'self' as 'death' > > if you are dead... do you than have an identity ? yes....see above > if all identities are false ... > > how can you have an identity ... 'false' is a term that only has meaning relavent to something or other that is 'not false' or 'true'. designating an 'identity' as 'false' only means that around the corner somewhere there is a 'true identity'. both evaluations are falsifications and farcical actually....but there is also identity in both, with what they are purpotedly trying to denominate. > what about interchange-able identities ... if there is an 'interchange' of anything, we have at a minimum two entities that can do this 'interchange'.......and since there are two...seperate and discreet 'things' in operation, there is deep identity on both sides, else there existence as that which could interchange anything would cease to be, and so would any such interchange-able-ness. > say i'm the dead ghost of nowhere and come from never, > i use this body to express my views on oneness, > do i have an identity, is the ghost of nowhere an identity ? again......as long as there is a 'you' who is talking, writing, asking, wondering etc. about identity in body or without, somewhere or nowhere, ghost or concretion........there is ipso facto identity. > I agree you can answer all the above questions with yes, > these are all, at least in some way identities. > > what about the conscious internet ? > > say you build 500 identical self-aware machines, > > or otherwise, say we build 500 identical clones of BoB. > > do these clones all have an identity ? > > They are all bob ... ok. but how can they all be bob ? they would be yes........how they would be, or how that can be, I have no idea....I am just a human being with limitations on my ability to understand the workings of this great and wonderful mystery of life. but what you ask: if it would be the case that all would be 'me' in identity, the answer is again yes. > when we speak of identity i'm thinking of something individual, maybe i should look up the meaning of identity in the dictionery, i believe someone recently posted an explanation, which i unconsciously noticed saying that identity comes from the word " idea " ... > > Lulu there is an unfathomable enigma and perplexity that is called the 'Understanding', or 'God', or 'Nonduality', or 'Zen', or 'Realization', or 'Spirit', or thousands of other word terms. It cannot be taught, transmitted, experienced, philosophised or even thought about. It is said that one can through 'Identity ' one can become it. But this too, is nothing more than words that signify nothing really, but we have to have something to use to try and speak of the unspeakable.......or we should remain silent. even the designation 'One " , as in all sre one, there is one reality, etc,. are all limiting ideas and are constricted to our form of logic and thought, wherein there exists this thing called 'number'. problem is if all is 'one', we have already made a seperation as an idea as fact, of 'one' as o[pposed to 'many'...or even two or three.....it is a problem we can't get around with language and communication...as both are designed for and used by only that which is 'more than one'...that is the very reason exist.All this hardly says anything more or less than what you say......for indeed what the real deal is, the which for which there is no whicher, the what's what....can never be talked about lest one and the Cosmos too end. We who talk and write on these lists, and those who go to churches and temples with simpler beliefs, and all peoples in there rituals of the 'other- world' or the 'spiritual', are all of us, intuiting that same 'somewhat' whereof we cannot speak, but whereof also we can never shut up. MARVELOUS and CLEARER than any thought or talk, is it not? at journeys end, which is also it's beginning and duration, there is laughter and tears, and joy and sadness, birth and death, and all the dualities that we find in Identity. :-)) in Laughter and Joy I join with you lu! ........bob(who only knows he doesn't know) P.S. believe nothing, question everything, love all as best and self. *********************NNB***************************** > Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong@> wrote: > > > > > > P: All entities are false. When the One looks at itself > > it sees itself as the other, and to relate to those others, > > it becomes a false entity. > > > > > > > > agreed. > > > > while the false entity doesn't differentiate between it's own > false self and other false selves, in it's falseness it relates to > every false self equally as to it's own false self ... > > > > it's oneness is so complete. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does one need an identity? > > > > If I am living completely in the Now, > > micro-second by micro-second, > > where does the need for an identity come in? > > > > Hi Bill > > > > > > > > if your micro seconds are in itself seperated from each other, > and if you live each micro-second as if there was no other, than you > don't need an identity, because nothing ever moves you, you are dead. > and dead " people " don't need an identity. > > > > If you abandon your identity, the natural identification you > have with your body, than of course, you die. > > > > Now if you ever decide, to return from nowhere and death and > start acting in the world of the living again, than you need an > identity. > > > > The need for an identity arises, when you like to participate in > the actions of life again or for the first time ... > > > > But of course you can have the identity of no one, maybe there > are a couple of people who have the identity of no one but we never > hear from them because they are always silent. > > > > > > > > If your choice is to have no identity, > > > > simply never ever send an email to the group again. > > > > Never speak a word to anybody ever again ... > > never do this and never do that ever again... > > > > LOL > > > > > > Beside, it is my opinion that you have no identity, > > that your identity is false, > > so what need is there to have a false identity ? > > > > or are you saying that no one speaks through you ? > > > > > > > > Lulu > > as soon as one says 'one'....there is identity with and speaking as > that 'one'. ergo asking " does one need an identity? " ....is like > asking 'does identity need an identity?' it is pure non sequitur and > self refering question. It even assumes that there is a 'third' > entity possible, that is in observance of the other two : 'identity' > and 'one'.......and that this superior third entity is asking a > legitimate question, while all the time the very existence of that > third entity is illusionary. one needs go back to the drawing board > of question posing. and as far as microsecond living is > concerned....how do you type, ask, expect an answer and even think > about anything in a microsecond? and from micro second to micro > second is in fact the way all continuity of thought, action and deed > proceed. perhaps within some " seamless flow " of " that which is not " , > for and within which are no containing things.....but for > the 'things'(identity or one) themselves there are discreet quanta of > time, events within time, and 'things' themselves. least this is what > most of the boys from Mach, Einstein and the creators of quantum > theory up to the present day have theorized........and the proof has > pretty well been in the pudding, despite wave/particle duality of > light.........even the waves are quantized, so this really leaves no > escape route. so: " does identity need an identity while existing in > the only way that all things can and do exist? " ......is flat out a > self answering question (no pun intended with the 'self' deal here). > > .......bob > > p.s................. " MY oneness?.......who's this other me? > > > > How low will we go? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 " if there is an 'interchange' of anything, we have at a minimum two entities that can do this 'interchange'.......and since there are two " Hi Bob, i'm happy with everything you have said, but here i like to bring in another model which i already mentioned before in speaking about " my oneness " . assume there is just one interchangeable identity, that the minimum of two is one and the same entity ... Lulu Groups are talking. We & acute;re listening. Check out the handy changes to Groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.