Guest guest Posted September 18, 2002 Report Share Posted September 18, 2002 > An attention without an observer is a beautiful way of putting it, but it is not the cause of unlimited space> Hi Mark, I guess you misunderstood: " So no, things are not flat, they are very real and there is unlimited space because there is only attention without an observer. " I did not say that attention w/o observer creates unlimited space. It enables awareness of an unlimited X, and as I said to Bill it doesn't matter what we call it. Names don't change reality, they don't clarify it, they only obscure it. Best, Pete News - Today's headlines http://news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Hello Pete, Thanks for the clarification. Attention without an observer is a very nice expression. But...how does it "enable" the X as we shall call it? M.Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 Do we agree that the Self (the Supreme) is inherently not an observer? Do we agree that whatever might qualify as " the eye " (in the sense of your question) is inherently an observer? pete seesaw [seesaw1us] Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:25 PM Nisargadatta RE: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete/Mark <P>Thanks for the clarification. & nbsp; Attention without an observer is a very nice expression. & nbsp; But...how does it " enable " the X as we shall call it It doesn't enable the X. They say the eye can't see itself. Right? Is that realy true? If you look up to a sunlit sky you'll see floaters. Floaters are in the eye, but are not the eye. Everything you see when you pay attention are floaters. The whole universe is a floater in attention. What is the eye, then? Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 --- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote: > Do we agree that the Self (the Supreme) is > inherently not an observer? The Supreme doesn't know itself as the Supreme, it knows itself as Diana Ross. Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 Bingo! pete seesaw [seesaw1us] Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:29 PM Nisargadatta RE: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete/Mark --- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote: > Do we agree that the Self (the Supreme) is > inherently not an observer? The Supreme doesn't know itself as the Supreme, it knows itself as Diana Ross. Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. 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.