Hi Tom, this is confusing, but in a fun way.Norquist also said "universe is consciousness" and "there is no observer." Is that because, as Krishnamurti pointed out, "the observer is the observed?"In Norquist's quote can "seeing" be substituted for consciousness and "seer" for universe? Would it be true thatSeeing is not aware OF the seer;Seeing is aware AS the seer?
Diane, I wrote a somewhat lengthy response, but before I could post it, it disappeared from the screen.Oh well, I'll try again another time.
My main point was "have fun, don't let them bother you! None of them can capture or convey "THIS".
Hi Tom, thanks for your responses. Norquist's quote is fascinating, and I do see that what it's pointing to is more important than me understanding the terminology. :)
Hi Diane, one difficulty we face in "understanding the terminology" is that different people use the same words differently. So, there isn't one universal terminology. I'm not really familiar with Norquist's lexicon, but I like the quote I posted because it points to What IS in a less dualistic way than some others out there.I'm moved to remind you of my view that NONE of these pointers can be knowledge as we usually think of it. That said, the phrases you quote of Norquist and Krishnamurti all seem to be pointing to the non-objective nature of "What IS".I don't know (or care) whether Norquist would approve of your substituting 'seeing' for 'consciousness'. However, if I were inclined to substitute terms (as I used to do with Liquorman's), I would say, "Seeing is aware AS the seen."Hope that's useful, Tom.
Thank you so much for your help. :)
De nada. :-)
I love this quote! I just received Norquist's book. Thanks for posting this Tom. There is a huge but subtle difference between consciousness being conscious of the universe (dualism) and consciousness BEING the universe (nondual).