namaste? Borg?

[Vinaire]

What is divinity?

is our basic nature devine? Or as a piece of a larger collective?

Is there the spark of a god unique, in each of us?

Namaste, I honor the god I recognize in you?

Or is the localized bit of consciousness we believe ourselves to be, just a drop in the "sea of souls"?

I don't know...

Is the love felt in the collective more true than the love chosen over else, by an individual of unfettered will?

Perhap tetralemic logic applies, and all possibilities are can be true, but we are too small to see it.

Alex. (looking for the space which does not overflow, when containing worldly desire)

What is divinity?

.

 

[Panda Termint]

I like it, Panda. i almost said "Sign me up" but caught meself in time, didn I?

Glad to hear it, Stan! I think you're cured!!!

 

[alex]

What is divinity?

.

Nice article....

Condensed it could read "do as though wilt...."

alex

 

[alex]

For further insight into this, I recommend that one should examine the common mis-identification of VIEWPOINT with ORIENTATION POINT. It's rampant in this Universe!
Where are you really? Is that YOU or a viewpoint you have extended into the Universe and adopted as "Self"?
I utilise VIEWPOINTS in livingness but never mistake them for who I really am.
As an analogy, I cleave to a simple view of it; life is a play.
Some people choose to live life as if they were the "Actor" rather than the "Writer". The actor often forgets that he's acting, the writer never forgets that it's something he created to be acted out. Occasionally, the "studio" (read, Universe) instigates a re-write without consulting the writer.
Note; If you find use in this analogy, there are many intermediate stages; Producer, Director, Camera-man, Camera, Actor, Props etc.
PS: I'm considering calling this simple philosophy "Shakespearology" or maybe "Actorology" would be more attractive to the kids.
What do you think?

"...never mistake them for who I really am."

Good lesson. Sounds like the purported ot8 ep, "NOW I KNOW WHO I AM NOT AND I AM INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT WHO I AM." (per Michael Pattinson)

I would think that all the "people on the set" are part of who you are being, and that in essence none is you except for thinking so in a moment in time.

And time IS subordinate, subjugated and superficial to what you truly are.

Which ends up sounding like nothing. Thus the creations, the time and all.

kills the boredom. Makes consciousness fun.

 

[gomorrhan]

You are whoever you are being. Identity is an RELATIONAL ACTIVITY OF BEING.

 

[alex]

You are whoever you are being. Identity is an RELATIONAL ACTIVITY OF BEING.

OK

But I would contend that identity is not the essensential characteristic of consciousness. It seems that whatever THAT is, is beyond words or perhaps even knowledge WHILE still assuming an identity.

Perhaps....or not.

alex

 

[gomorrhan]

consciousness is awareness. identity is the sense of "who" is being aware. it is a fiction.

 

[alex]

consciousness is awareness. identity is the sense of "who" is being aware. it is a fiction.

I agree identity is a fiction, but disagree that it is the sense of who is being aware.

My personal experience is that I am aware of using created situations, identity, but feeling that it is artifice.

My sense of self seems purer to me than identity. A cosmic stillness, with creation swirling around it.

I feel "myself" existing outside of time and space yet also in it.

Have I just proved myself delusional, schizo?

 

[gomorrhan]

Perhaps. Was that what you were trying to prove?

Sounds like just another identity to me (by definition), although unconventional by standard "I'm a plumber" identity. Yours is "cosmic stillness".

 

[alex]

Perhaps. Was that what you were trying to prove?

Sounds like just another identity to me (by definition), although unconventional by standard "I'm a plumber" identity. Yours is "cosmic stillness".

Well that would be the problem, describing something from a frame of reference that is subordinate rather then transcendent.

 

[Vinaire]

You are whoever you are being. Identity is an RELATIONAL ACTIVITY OF BEING.

What does "RELATIONAL" mean here? Could you please expand on this further!

Thanks.

.

 

[Vinaire]

A viewpoint cannot perceive itself. An identity cannot perceive itself from its own viewpoint.

"Infinite Self" is probably the "viewpoint" from which all possible identities may be perceived.

I am putting those two words in quotes because they are just place holders. The underlying concept is impossible to describe.

.

 

[gomorrhan]

The below definition is what I was referring to, Vinaire. By identifying with something, we form an identity relationship with it. We think we are that thing.

From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: iden·ti·ty
Pronunciation: \ī-ˈden-tə-tē, ə-, -ˈde-nə-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural iden·ti·ties
Etymology: Middle French identité, from Late Latin identitat-, identitas, probably from Latin identidem repeatedly, contraction of idem et idem, literally, same and same
Date: 1570
1 a: sameness of essential or generic character in different instances b: sameness in all that constitutes the objective reality of a thing : oneness
2 a: the distinguishing character or personality of an individual : individuality b: the relation established by psychological identification
3: the condition of being the same with something described or asserted <establish the identity of stolen goods>
4: an equation that is satisfied for all values of the symbols
5: identity element

 

[Vinaire]

OK. Now it is clearer.

Something has to be there already before one can identify with it.

That something has to be created first.

So, an identity is basically a product of identification with one's creation.

That creation is something like one's desire or purpose, and thoughts that go along with it.

.

 

[gomorrhan]

Yes, it can be solely your own creation, or it can be your interpretation of another's creation (which still ends up essentially yours, although perhaps you wouldn't have thought of it without their input).

 

[alex]

"There is a great secret that beings throughout time have announced, the secret of an extraordinary treasure, the treasure of the nectar of eternal life. It is the nectar of pure beingness, recognizing itself as consciousness and overflowing in the love of that recognition.

If you imagine yourself to be located in a body, then you will move that body from place to place, searching for this treasure of nectar. But, if you will stop all searching right now and tell the truth to yourself, you will know what is known in the core of your bones. You will know what these great beings knew and attempted to describe. You will know it with no image of it, no concept of it, no thought of it. You will know it as that which has eternally been here. And you will know it as yourself."

Gangaji

www.gangaji.org

 

[Voltaire's Child]

The identity issue is fascinating. It surely is the thing about the current vs past lifetimes. It's not so much a matter of now he or she has got a different body - it's that they have a new identity and that can be very different from previous ones.

What bugs me about death is the loss of current identity. I'd rather have it be a matter of choice.

 

[gomorrhan]

Me too, Fluff. Also, I'd rather have it be something which isn't LOST, but simply relegated to memory (and not memory that can't be readily accessed).

 

[Panda Termint]

This may be a case of stating the obvious but...
One of the more basic problems with identities is that they're usually a complete package of things that include a lot of physical and thought-forms. Very few Beings are liable to even think "self" and find anything other than an identity package.
It's the ultimate paradox, the only thing in all existence that a Being cannot inspect is SELF.
"Finding yourself" is the biggest joke in the Universe.
A Being tends to associate the identity with many impermanent things and so comes to believe that the identity can perish along with those impermanent things. With the forms gone or changed the Being seems to consider that the ability to fully recall an identity has somehow been compromised.
The truth is, of course, that he only considered himself to be the identity/form and none of it is the actual Being.
As someone once said, "He's mocking it up!"
I hope this helps.
Panda.

 

[Vinaire]

Yes, it can be solely your own creation, or it can be your interpretation of another's creation (which still ends up essentially yours, although perhaps you wouldn't have thought of it without their input).

And we are doing that all the time automatically... The point is to get to a point of either doing it or not doing it knowingly...

Idenics helps one become aware of automaticities.

.