getting back to the centre (((Re true by definition

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > > > Apparently what you *meant* to say was, " No empirical

statement

> > > > > is ever true by definition. " Is that right?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yes, it´s right.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > If that *is* what you meant, which why you didn't make that

> > > > > clear when I had already made a distinction between

> > > > > grammatical statements and empirical statements, is beyond

> > > > > me.

> > > > >

> > > > > And, if " " No empirical statement is ever true by

definition, "

> > > > > *is* what you intended to say, then *that* statement is true

> > > > > by definition.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > And now? what?

> > > > What´s the point of it all?

> > > > Being right or wrong?

> > > > Or do we have some really interesting issues to talk about?

> > > > Where did we start anyway?

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > >

> > > So glad you said that!

> > > I was thinking the same thing.

> > >

> > > We were talking about the notion of " centre " .

> > > You were saying that there cannot be " conditioning "

> > > without a " centre " . I was disagreeing with that.

> > >

> > > We don't have to get hung up on that point.

> > > The important point is the matter of the

> > > " imaginary centre " being at the root of confusion.

> > > Is that making sense so far?

> > >

> > > We have been talking about " conditioning " as

> > > central to the discussion, and yet have we really

> > > defined it? Perhaps it is important to do so.

> > >

> > > I tend to see conditioning on a very " micro level " .

> > > Reflecting just now, really any movement in consciousness

> > > I regard as due to conditioning. Any observed transition

> > > is due to conditioning, in my view. What else could it

> > > be due to? For any " observed transition " to occur, there

> > > must be some mechanism to make it occur. That is my

> > > assumption, anyhow.

> > >

> > > That would seem to imply that conditioning is all that

> > > there is. But it is not, really. It is only what is

> > > *observable*. What is observable pertains to phenomena.

> > > But it isn't necessary to assume that phenomena is

> > > all there is.

> > >

> > > Somehow there is a connection between conditioning

> > > and attention. I'm saying this on the fly, as have never

> > > thought of it this way before. But it seems to me that

> > > the key is in paying *absolute attention* to what

> > > " is observable " . When attention is completely open

> > > -- without a centre -- then the " centre " is no longer

> > > *fed*. That is just a momentary speculation...

> > >

> > > I just stumbled across the following from David Bohm's

> > > forward to *The Future of Humanity* (which consists

> > > of dialogs between Bohm and Krishnamurti on that topic):

> > >

> > > ...as Krishnamurti points out, psychological time, or

> > > " becoming, " is the very source of the destructive

> > > current that is putting the future of humanity at

> > > risk. To question time in this way, however, is to

> > > question the adequacy of knowledge and thought, as a

> > > means of dealing with this problem. But if knowledge

> > > and thought are not adequate, what is it that is

> > > actually required? This led in turn to the question

> > > of whether mind is limited by the brain of mankind,

> > > with all the knowledge that it has accumulated over

> > > the ages. This knowledge, which now conditions us

> > > deeply, has produced what is, in effect, an

> > > irrational and self-destructive programme in which

> > > the brain seems to be helplessly caught up.

> > >

> > > If mind is limited by such a state of the brain, then

> > > the future of humanity must be very grim indeed.

> > > Krishnamurti does not, however, regard these

> > > limitations as inevitable. Rather, he emphasizes that

> > > mind is essentially free of the distorting bias that

> > > is inherent in the conditioning of the brain, and

> > > that, through insight arising in proper undirected

> > > attention without a centre, it can change the cells

> > > of the brain and remove the destructive conditioning.

> > > If this is so, then it is crucially important that

> > > there be this kind of attention, and that we give to

> > > this question the same intensity of energy that we

> > > generally give to other activities of life that are

> > > really of vital interest to us.

> > >

> > > That puts the crux in a nutshell rather nicely, in my

> > > view.

> > >

> > > I have just a bit to add to that:

> > >

> > > It has occurred to me recently that the challenge with

> > > paying *complete attention* is that material will come

> > > up that is " uncomfortable " . There is a tendency to move

> > > away from discomfort, it seems, and that tendency must

> > > be overcome. The *magic* is that when discomfort is

> > > attended to deeply and completely... it *changes*. This

> > > is not to say that it goes " poof! " ... but the stalemate

> > > is broken when What Is is truly faced with " unconditional

> > > attention " .

> > >

> > >

> > > Bill

> >

> >

> > I would even say that it does go " poof! " ;-)

> > The word " magic " is definitely appropriate here.

> > There is intelligence beyond all conditioning which has a natural

> > understanding of things, which doesn´t need to think and analyse

to

> > know without a slightest doubt what the right action is.

> > On top of it the attention is itself this intelligent action, no

> > effort required for things to go exactly in the most natural and

> > perfect way.

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> Perfect.

> And you're right, the attention is itself the intelligence.

>

> It is as if the intelligence is never *in* what is observed.

> But it is never " apart " from it either.

>

> I remember taking a psychology course where they talked

> about putting a rat in a maze for the first time, and how

> it would defecate, urinate, and generally go through a

> total disorientation. So the first step was always to

> " desensitize " the rat to being in the maze.

>

> The phenomena that presents to consciousness is *totally

> without context* (am just now thinking of this)...

> there *appears to be* a context... but it is Wrong.

> And so consciousness can easily be disoriented, lost,

> in confusion.

>

> What is just now striking me is that unconditional attention

> has the effect of " desensitizing " to the seeming chaos,

> disorientation.

>

> Ahhh... another thing about " attention " comes just as I'm

> about to go...

>

> complete attention = truth

> so simple

>

> what else *but* complete attention = truth ?

>

>

> Bill

 

 

Yes, Bill.

 

Len