Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 In consciousness there is movement; awareness by itself is motionless and timeless, here and now. -Nisargadatta Majaraj Attention as Bondage The movement of attention is what defines the " movement in consciousness " . There is not consciousness without attention. Where there has not been " attention to " (whatever) there is not " consciousness of " . What is outside the scope of attention is effectively unconscious. Bondage is the " restlessness " entailed in the movement of attention. It is not so much identification with a fictional " self " that is the root of bondage, but the *ongoing* identification with the movement of attention. Note that: Attention typically has a *compulsive quality*, as if the movement of attention were entirely compelled by the succession of presented stimuli. The restless movement of attention has a sense of " seeking " to it, as if it were *going somewhere*. Attention and Liberation If there is any freedom of choice at all, it would seem that it is in regard to attention. If there is *no choice* in regard to attention then there certainly can be no choice whatsoever (will assume this is obvious for now). So *is* there any choice in regard to attention? Typically that question will be regarded as pertaining to a choice about the *direction* of attention, i.e. about what attention is *to*. Here I will reject that as a viable option without much explanation. Briefly, any choice about the direction of attention must be based on *something* and whatever that is can only be conditioning, so there is no basis for any true freedom of choice in terms of the direction of attention. There is another way that choice can be applied to attention, and that pertains to *relaxation* of attention. Attention can always be softened, expanded. This possibility rarely occurs to anyone. But it is a possibility always available. In fact, when gone into and deeply explored, it will be discovered that attention can be expanded in a limitless way. Consider this passage from Krishnamurti: Have you ever sat very silently, not with your attention fixed on anything, not making an effort to concentrate, but with the mind very quiet, really still? Then you hear everything, don't you? You hear the far off noises as well as those that are nearer and those that are very close by, the immediate sounds—which means really that you are listening to everything. Your mind is not confined to one narrow little channel. If you can listen in this way, listen with ease, without strain, you will find an extraordinary change taking place within you, a change which comes without your volition, without your asking; and in that change there is great beauty and depth of insight. There he describes an attention that is not localized in any way, but in a sense " everywhere at once " . It is attention that is not bounded or constrained. And when attention is so fully expanded, there is movement of a different kind from the restless movement of the seeking/searching of constrained attention. The movement is now everywhere at once; it is a sparkle, a vitality that pervades all of experience. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Bill -- What you wrote below is very clear and well-expressed. Thanks! I'd like to offer some comments as I look into the situation you described so well. The complusive movement of attention is associated with motive, memory, experience, and intent. It is typical of humanity. Not because humanity wants to suffer, but because they want to protect themselves, ensure well-being, and establish themselves in what they prefer. One typical example would be the motive to prosper, the memory-and-experienced-based associatation of suffering with deprivation (of food, self-esteem, money), the intent to ensure and protect by obtaining access to food or other resources, money, position which will bring positive reinforcement from others hence self-esteem). Attention is then " directed, " aimed at certain desired results. It should be notice that the degree of suffering can become so tension-filled that the apparent individual becomes the seeking of release from the situation, through drugs or other escapes, or even to the point of suicide. From my perspective this compulsive movement of attention is very much associated with a sense of self-existence as separable. Indeed, I would say part of the extensivity of the (sometimes hidden) suffering, is that attention is divided between trying to obtain externally, and trying to maintain internally (a sense of self-existence and self-esteem). Again from my perspective, inquiry into one's way of being will reveal the impossibility of nonsuffering, the impossibility of full relaxation and opening of attention. So, admonitions to relax (while well-intentioned, and probably worth trying) aren't likely to avail. This impossibility of relaxing attention is due to a fixated notion of self-existence which must be maintained and protected. If one now is fully aware of how extensive is the suffering movement of attention as it seeks externally and internally, and how divided this is, one understands the impossibility and contradiction of one's situation. It is at this moment that attention/awareness spontaneously opens and relaxes -- only because it has no choice. It has no choice because in this moment of insight there is literally no place to go, and no way to sustain a sense of continuing selfhood. There is no future to move into, only the anxious projection of a future with the intent to self-protect. Clear observation shows the impossibility, that there is only the tension and anxiety of trying to maintain self, and never the actuality of the security of self that one wishes for. Opening in this way, there is no longer any maintenance of self-center. Understanding the choicelessness of awareness *now* -- one also sees that everything that people consider their choices (as their attention pursues goals) is actually choiceless at heart. The entire set-up of motivation, intent, seeking, splitting, occurs choicelessly although it includes a sense of choice. One may notice that it is the felt sense and seeming experience of choice (along with the seeming experience of self-existing) that is strongly related to the various negative self-experiences that people struggle to protect against (feeling inadequate, insecure, worthless). One also may notice that the things people affirm (their money, status, beauty, love, power, joy, spirituality, communion) are focuses for attention meant to deny, negate, push away the focuses that they don't want (poverty, devaluation, ugliness, powerlessness, isolation). If this is all clear, there is no choice here, for oneself, and there, for others. And this choiceless awareness includes everything considered and spoken of as existing as an object (and vice versa), and therefore has no split of inside vs. outside, or us vs. them. There is no outside to it, hence nothing existing inside it. This truth doesn't rest in any view, nor in the state of not holding any view. It truly is dimensionless, not dependent on a particular being or condition, and all pervasive. This is not abstract, but is directly experientially so, in all situations, with all beings, inside and outside of those beings, at all times, timelessly. Yes, truth (which you and K. are terming attention and awareness) is so everywhere at once, inside and outside, with no inside or outside to it. It transcends even attention and awareness, not dependent on those or any characteristics, is choiceless because no separation is here, and experientially is indeed the kind of opening and even-and-pervasive awareness you describe. -- Dan Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > > In consciousness there is movement; awareness by > itself is motionless and timeless, here and now. > -Nisargadatta Majaraj > > Attention as Bondage > > The movement of attention is what defines the " movement in > consciousness " . > > There is not consciousness without attention. Where there > has not been " attention to " (whatever) there is not > " consciousness of " . What is outside the scope of attention > is effectively unconscious. > > Bondage is the " restlessness " entailed in the movement of > attention. It is not so much identification with a fictional > " self " that is the root of bondage, but the *ongoing* > identification with the movement of attention. > > Note that: > > Attention typically has a *compulsive quality*, as if the > movement of attention were entirely compelled by the > succession of presented stimuli. > > The restless movement of attention has a sense of " seeking " > to it, as if it were *going somewhere*. > > Attention and Liberation > > If there is any freedom of choice at all, it would seem that > it is in regard to attention. If there is *no choice* in > regard to attention then there certainly can be no choice > whatsoever (will assume this is obvious for now). > > So *is* there any choice in regard to attention? > > Typically that question will be regarded as pertaining to a > choice about the *direction* of attention, i.e. about what > attention is *to*. Here I will reject that as a viable option > without much explanation. Briefly, any choice about the > direction of attention must be based on *something* and > whatever that is can only be conditioning, so there is no > basis for any true freedom of choice in terms of the direction > of attention. > > There is another way that choice can be applied to attention, > and that pertains to *relaxation* of attention. Attention can > always be softened, expanded. This possibility rarely occurs > to anyone. But it is a possibility always available. > > In fact, when gone into and deeply explored, it will be > discovered that attention can be expanded in a limitless way. > > Consider this passage from Krishnamurti: > > Have you ever sat very silently, not with your > attention fixed on anything, not making an effort to > concentrate, but with the mind very quiet, really > still? Then you hear everything, don't you? You hear > the far off noises as well as those that are nearer and > those that are very close by, the immediate > sounds—which means really that you are listening to > everything. Your mind is not confined to one narrow > little channel. If you can listen in this way, listen > with ease, without strain, you will find an > extraordinary change taking place within you, a change > which comes without your volition, without your asking; > and in that change there is great beauty and depth of > insight. > > There he describes an attention that is not localized in any > way, but in a sense " everywhere at once " . It is attention that > is not bounded or constrained. > > And when attention is so fully expanded, there is movement of > a different kind from the restless movement of the > seeking/searching of constrained attention. The movement is > now everywhere at once; it is a sparkle, a vitality that > pervades all of experience. > > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Hi Bill My reply appears a bit late but I was thinking about your post. I have several problems with it. First point is that in German the word awareness does not exist, only consciouness. In a dictionary your will see awareness translated as consciousness. Ok, in the meantime I am used to that but nevertheless awareness as Niz is uing it I do identify as NEUROSIS, as a delusion caused by that division which creates the " observer " . In short, for me it is impossible to grasp what this " awareness " is and so also all these following philosophies and spiritual creeds which are built on an awareness separate from consciousness. The next problem I have is with your statement that without attention there is no consciousness. In my understanding consciousness is its content, without content no consciousness. Now, how dou you know that you are attentive ? The only I can be conscious of is when I am focussing on one aspect like a sound or an object. But " attentive " what the hell is that ? Is it kind of waiting what the stream of consciousness will bring next, is it greed or fear ? Is it kinda cat waiting afore a mouse hole for its prey ? What is the driving force behind attention, the motivation ? Which means this motivation must be in your statement a pretty powerful agent, again separated from consciousness, being able to switch consciousness on or off. Werner Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > > In consciousness there is movement; awareness by > itself is motionless and timeless, here and now. > -Nisargadatta Majaraj > > Attention as Bondage > > The movement of attention is what defines the " movement in > consciousness " . > > There is not consciousness without attention. Where there > has not been " attention to " (whatever) there is not > " consciousness of " . What is outside the scope of attention > is effectively unconscious. > > Bondage is the " restlessness " entailed in the movement of > attention. It is not so much identification with a fictional > " self " that is the root of bondage, but the *ongoing* > identification with the movement of attention. > > Note that: > > Attention typically has a *compulsive quality*, as if the > movement of attention were entirely compelled by the > succession of presented stimuli. > > The restless movement of attention has a sense of " seeking " > to it, as if it were *going somewhere*. > > Attention and Liberation > > If there is any freedom of choice at all, it would seem that > it is in regard to attention. If there is *no choice* in > regard to attention then there certainly can be no choice > whatsoever (will assume this is obvious for now). > > So *is* there any choice in regard to attention? > > Typically that question will be regarded as pertaining to a > choice about the *direction* of attention, i.e. about what > attention is *to*. Here I will reject that as a viable option > without much explanation. Briefly, any choice about the > direction of attention must be based on *something* and > whatever that is can only be conditioning, so there is no > basis for any true freedom of choice in terms of the direction > of attention. > > There is another way that choice can be applied to attention, > and that pertains to *relaxation* of attention. Attention can > always be softened, expanded. This possibility rarely occurs > to anyone. But it is a possibility always available. > > In fact, when gone into and deeply explored, it will be > discovered that attention can be expanded in a limitless way. > > Consider this passage from Krishnamurti: > > Have you ever sat very silently, not with your > attention fixed on anything, not making an effort to > concentrate, but with the mind very quiet, really > still? Then you hear everything, don't you? You hear > the far off noises as well as those that are nearer and > those that are very close by, the immediate > sounds—which means really that you are listening to > everything. Your mind is not confined to one narrow > little channel. If you can listen in this way, listen > with ease, without strain, you will find an > extraordinary change taking place within you, a change > which comes without your volition, without your asking; > and in that change there is great beauty and depth of > insight. > > There he describes an attention that is not localized in any > way, but in a sense " everywhere at once " . It is attention that > is not bounded or constrained. > > And when attention is so fully expanded, there is movement of > a different kind from the restless movement of the > seeking/searching of constrained attention. The movement is > now everywhere at once; it is a sparkle, a vitality that > pervades all of experience. > > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 sum peeps r n2 bondage. it adds sum spice 2 their kink. attention iz az attention duz. freedom from what? dc Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > > In consciousness there is movement; awareness by > itself is motionless and timeless, here and now. > -Nisargadatta Majaraj > > Attention as Bondage > > The movement of attention is what defines the " movement in > consciousness " . > > There is not consciousness without attention. Where there > has not been " attention to " (whatever) there is not > " consciousness of " . What is outside the scope of attention > is effectively unconscious. > > Bondage is the " restlessness " entailed in the movement of > attention. It is not so much identification with a fictional > " self " that is the root of bondage, but the *ongoing* > identification with the movement of attention. > > Note that: > > Attention typically has a *compulsive quality*, as if the > movement of attention were entirely compelled by the > succession of presented stimuli. > > The restless movement of attention has a sense of " seeking " > to it, as if it were *going somewhere*. > > Attention and Liberation > > If there is any freedom of choice at all, it would seem that > it is in regard to attention. If there is *no choice* in > regard to attention then there certainly can be no choice > whatsoever (will assume this is obvious for now). > > So *is* there any choice in regard to attention? > > Typically that question will be regarded as pertaining to a > choice about the *direction* of attention, i.e. about what > attention is *to*. Here I will reject that as a viable option > without much explanation. Briefly, any choice about the > direction of attention must be based on *something* and > whatever that is can only be conditioning, so there is no > basis for any true freedom of choice in terms of the direction > of attention. > > There is another way that choice can be applied to attention, > and that pertains to *relaxation* of attention. Attention can > always be softened, expanded. This possibility rarely occurs > to anyone. But it is a possibility always available. > > In fact, when gone into and deeply explored, it will be > discovered that attention can be expanded in a limitless way. > > Consider this passage from Krishnamurti: > > Have you ever sat very silently, not with your > attention fixed on anything, not making an effort to > concentrate, but with the mind very quiet, really > still? Then you hear everything, don't you? You hear > the far off noises as well as those that are nearer and > those that are very close by, the immediate > sounds—which means really that you are listening to > everything. Your mind is not confined to one narrow > little channel. If you can listen in this way, listen > with ease, without strain, you will find an > extraordinary change taking place within you, a change > which comes without your volition, without your asking; > and in that change there is great beauty and depth of > insight. > > There he describes an attention that is not localized in any > way, but in a sense " everywhere at once " . It is attention that > is not bounded or constrained. > > And when attention is so fully expanded, there is movement of > a different kind from the restless movement of the > seeking/searching of constrained attention. The movement is > now everywhere at once; it is a sparkle, a vitality that > pervades all of experience. > > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > Bill -- > > What you wrote below is very clear and well-expressed. Thanks! > > I'd like to offer some comments as I look into the situation you > described so well. > > The complusive movement of attention is associated with motive, > memory, experience, and intent. I tend to look at it in (what I regard as) more fundamental terms. An infant in its first week of life will have its attention moving hither and thither. Must we attribute any such movement of attention to some motive? It seems to me that perception, and attention as a fundamental aspect of that, are among the most rudimentary functions of an organism, even more rudimentary than motility (though less so than alimentation). So the movement of attention had to be going on far before such complex " higher " processes as motivation, memory, intent, and the like. > It is typical of humanity. Not > because humanity wants to suffer, but because they want to protect > themselves, ensure well-being, and establish themselves in what they > prefer. > > One typical example would be the motive to prosper, the > memory-and-experienced-based associatation of suffering with > deprivation (of food, self-esteem, money), the intent to ensure and > protect by obtaining access to food or other resources, money, > position which will bring positive reinforcement from others hence > self-esteem). Attention is then " directed, " aimed at certain desired > results. It should be notice that the degree of suffering can become > so tension-filled that the apparent individual becomes the seeking of > release from the situation, through drugs or other escapes, or even to > the point of suicide. > > From my perspective this compulsive movement of attention is very much > associated with a sense of self-existence as separable. .... so when attention is " fully expanded " (everywhere at once)... there is no sense of " self-existence " . Makes sense to me. [You said " compulsive movement " ... but isn't any movement of attention compulsive?] That is the same or akin to what I was saying when I wrote: > Bondage is the " restlessness " entailed in the movement of > attention. It is not so much identification with a fictional > " self " that is the root of bondage, but the *ongoing* > identification with the movement of attention. What I was saying is that the " movement of attention " -- if identified with -- is in effect the very *fictional/existential self* that seems so elusive (hence all the talk about so-called ego, which never can be really tracked down, but only " appears to be " in the movement of attention). > Indeed, I > would say part of the extensivity of the (sometimes hidden) suffering, > is that attention is divided between trying to obtain externally, and > trying to maintain internally (a sense of self-existence and self-esteem). > > Again from my perspective, inquiry into one's way of being will reveal > the impossibility of nonsuffering, the impossibility of full > relaxation and opening of attention. This is a hard point to share, Dan. You say that in your experience such-and-such an inquiry reveals such-and-such an impossibility. How can I possibly join with you in discussion here? Unless I have done the same and have come to the same conclusion I can't follow you here. The impossibility of the full relaxation and opening of attention is not an *obvious* given for me. There are a lot of angles here, and will hold off for now. [but for example, it didn't seem to come about for Ramana in that particular way...] > So, admonitions to relax (while > well-intentioned, and probably worth trying) aren't likely to avail. > This impossibility of relaxing attention is due to a fixated notion of > self-existence which must be maintained and protected. I see your point. *If* the movement of attention is strictly correlated with a notion of an existential self, *then* for the movement of attention to end means there must be an end to the notion of the existential self. Not that any causal relationship is being articulated, only a correlation. One complexity that comes up is that even if someone is in fully expanded attention as K describes, if his/her cell phone rings then attention will go to that (perhaps). And that does not mean that attention is not " everywhere at once " at that point. So what is going on? Are there *two* attentions, or what? To me it is not that there is no movement of attention. K can be sitting on a hilltop in fully expanded attention beholding the sunset and then hear a particular birdsong and begin dwelling in that. Still fully expanded attention in my view. Attention is not *narrowed* to the birdsong, but the birdsong gains more emphasis at that moment. Something like a symphony where at a particular portion the oboes come on strong. All the instruments are still playing, but there is an emphasis. But most important is that there is not *indentification with the movement of attention*. There can still be movement of attention, but if there is not identification with that, then that is still the " free state " in my view. It is not that " I " am now noticing the bird, but that the birdsong is suddenly pouring everywhere over everything. Attention still moves, but with a freedom and openness that has no sense of volition to it at all. It is not the movement of " my " attention, it is just the " holomovement " . So my point of departure with what you say is the notion that " movement of attention " is bondage. Per my view it is *identification with* that movement that is bondage. > > If one now is fully aware of how extensive is the suffering movement > of attention as it seeks externally and internally, and how divided > this is, one understands the impossibility and contradiction of one's > situation. > > It is at this moment that attention/awareness spontaneously opens and > relaxes -- only because it has no choice. And that is a disidentification with the movement of attention. Such disindentification can come about in many different ways, in my view. You articulate one particular way here, via realization that there is no end of suffering, despair and surrender, etc. Maybe that is ultimately the only path anyone takes. I don't know. I think it must be an *element* in most any path. [note: I see K's insights about conditioning related to this.] > It has no choice because in this moment of insight there is literally > no place to go, and no way to sustain a sense of continuing selfhood. > There is no future to move into, only the anxious projection of a > future with the intent to self-protect. Clear observation shows the > impossibility, that there is only the tension and anxiety of trying to > maintain self, and never the actuality of the security of self that > one wishes for. > > Opening in this way, there is no longer any maintenance of self-center. The maintenance of a self-center is the root of suffering, on that I agree totally. > Understanding the choicelessness of awareness *now* -- one also sees > that everything that people consider their choices (as their attention > pursues goals) is actually choiceless at heart. > > The entire set-up of motivation, intent, seeking, splitting, occurs > choicelessly although it includes a sense of choice. > > One may notice that it is the felt sense and seeming experience of > choice (along with the seeming experience of self-existing) that is > strongly related to the various negative self-experiences that people > struggle to protect against (feeling inadequate, insecure, worthless). > > One also may notice that the things people affirm (their money, > status, beauty, love, power, joy, spirituality, communion) are focuses > for attention meant to deny, negate, push away the focuses that they > don't want (poverty, devaluation, ugliness, powerlessness, isolation). > > If this is all clear, there is no choice here, for oneself, and there, > for others. And this choiceless awareness includes everything > considered and spoken of as existing as an object (and vice versa), > and therefore has no split of inside vs. outside, or us vs. them. > There is no outside to it, hence nothing existing inside it. This > truth doesn't rest in any view, nor in the state of not holding any > view. It truly is dimensionless, not dependent on a particular being > or condition, and all pervasive. > > This is not abstract, but is directly experientially so, in all > situations, with all beings, inside and outside of those beings, at > all times, timelessly. > > Yes, truth (which you and K. are terming attention and awareness) is > so everywhere at once, inside and outside, with no inside or outside > to it. It transcends even attention and awareness, not dependent on > those or any characteristics, is choiceless because no separation is > here, and experientially is indeed the kind of opening and > even-and-pervasive awareness you describe. > > -- Dan It seems to me that there can be a gradual process of disindentification with the movement of awareness. Softening of the attention process, and just in a very mild sense will do, is a tiny bit of " distancing " . Not everyone can come to the sudden, " Ah! all is futile! " realization you describe, IMO. Or at least some may need some " distancing " to come to the position of such a sudden realization being possible. Buddha gave a lot of particular recommendations for purifying the life etc. as " perparation " for the profound breakthrough he was communicating about. Gradual means are valuable in my view. Bill > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart > wrote: > > > > > > In consciousness there is movement; awareness by > > itself is motionless and timeless, here and now. > > -Nisargadatta Majaraj > > > > Attention as Bondage > > > > The movement of attention is what defines the " movement in > > consciousness " . > > > > There is not consciousness without attention. Where there > > has not been " attention to " (whatever) there is not > > " consciousness of " . What is outside the scope of attention > > is effectively unconscious. > > > > Bondage is the " restlessness " entailed in the movement of > > attention. It is not so much identification with a fictional > > " self " that is the root of bondage, but the *ongoing* > > identification with the movement of attention. > > > > Note that: > > > > Attention typically has a *compulsive quality*, as if the > > movement of attention were entirely compelled by the > > succession of presented stimuli. > > > > The restless movement of attention has a sense of " seeking " > > to it, as if it were *going somewhere*. > > > > Attention and Liberation > > > > If there is any freedom of choice at all, it would seem that > > it is in regard to attention. If there is *no choice* in > > regard to attention then there certainly can be no choice > > whatsoever (will assume this is obvious for now). > > > > So *is* there any choice in regard to attention? > > > > Typically that question will be regarded as pertaining to a > > choice about the *direction* of attention, i.e. about what > > attention is *to*. Here I will reject that as a viable option > > without much explanation. Briefly, any choice about the > > direction of attention must be based on *something* and > > whatever that is can only be conditioning, so there is no > > basis for any true freedom of choice in terms of the direction > > of attention. > > > > There is another way that choice can be applied to attention, > > and that pertains to *relaxation* of attention. Attention can > > always be softened, expanded. This possibility rarely occurs > > to anyone. But it is a possibility always available. > > > > In fact, when gone into and deeply explored, it will be > > discovered that attention can be expanded in a limitless way. > > > > Consider this passage from Krishnamurti: > > > > Have you ever sat very silently, not with your > > attention fixed on anything, not making an effort to > > concentrate, but with the mind very quiet, really > > still? Then you hear everything, don't you? You hear > > the far off noises as well as those that are nearer and > > those that are very close by, the immediate > > sounds—which means really that you are listening to > > everything. Your mind is not confined to one narrow > > little channel. If you can listen in this way, listen > > with ease, without strain, you will find an > > extraordinary change taking place within you, a change > > which comes without your volition, without your asking; > > and in that change there is great beauty and depth of > > insight. > > > > There he describes an attention that is not localized in any > > way, but in a sense " everywhere at once " . It is attention that > > is not bounded or constrained. > > > > And when attention is so fully expanded, there is movement of > > a different kind from the restless movement of the > > seeking/searching of constrained attention. The movement is > > now everywhere at once; it is a sparkle, a vitality that > > pervades all of experience. > > > > > > > > Bill > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 but but but I like bondage, James Bond that is, shaken not stirred no ice, clink, here's mud in yer eye ;-) Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " <dannyc_1eyeluv wrote: > > sum peeps r n2 bondage. it adds sum spice 2 their kink. attention iz > az attention duz. freedom from what? > > dc > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > > > In consciousness there is movement; awareness by > > itself is motionless and timeless, here and now. > > -Nisargadatta Majaraj > > > > Attention as Bondage > > > > The movement of attention is what defines the " movement in > > consciousness " . > > > > There is not consciousness without attention. Where there > > has not been " attention to " (whatever) there is not > > " consciousness of " . What is outside the scope of attention > > is effectively unconscious. > > > > Bondage is the " restlessness " entailed in the movement of > > attention. It is not so much identification with a fictional > > " self " that is the root of bondage, but the *ongoing* > > identification with the movement of attention. > > > > Note that: > > > > Attention typically has a *compulsive quality*, as if the > > movement of attention were entirely compelled by the > > succession of presented stimuli. > > > > The restless movement of attention has a sense of " seeking " > > to it, as if it were *going somewhere*. > > > > Attention and Liberation > > > > If there is any freedom of choice at all, it would seem that > > it is in regard to attention. If there is *no choice* in > > regard to attention then there certainly can be no choice > > whatsoever (will assume this is obvious for now). > > > > So *is* there any choice in regard to attention? > > > > Typically that question will be regarded as pertaining to a > > choice about the *direction* of attention, i.e. about what > > attention is *to*. Here I will reject that as a viable option > > without much explanation. Briefly, any choice about the > > direction of attention must be based on *something* and > > whatever that is can only be conditioning, so there is no > > basis for any true freedom of choice in terms of the direction > > of attention. > > > > There is another way that choice can be applied to attention, > > and that pertains to *relaxation* of attention. Attention can > > always be softened, expanded. This possibility rarely occurs > > to anyone. But it is a possibility always available. > > > > In fact, when gone into and deeply explored, it will be > > discovered that attention can be expanded in a limitless way. > > > > Consider this passage from Krishnamurti: > > > > Have you ever sat very silently, not with your > > attention fixed on anything, not making an effort to > > concentrate, but with the mind very quiet, really > > still? Then you hear everything, don't you? You hear > > the far off noises as well as those that are nearer and > > those that are very close by, the immediate > > sounds—which means really that you are listening to > > everything. Your mind is not confined to one narrow > > little channel. If you can listen in this way, listen > > with ease, without strain, you will find an > > extraordinary change taking place within you, a change > > which comes without your volition, without your asking; > > and in that change there is great beauty and depth of > > insight. > > > > There he describes an attention that is not localized in any > > way, but in a sense " everywhere at once " . It is attention that > > is not bounded or constrained. > > > > And when attention is so fully expanded, there is movement of > > a different kind from the restless movement of the > > seeking/searching of constrained attention. The movement is > > now everywhere at once; it is a sparkle, a vitality that > > pervades all of experience. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " <dannyc_1eyeluv wrote: > > sum peeps r n2 bondage. it adds sum spice 2 their kink. attention iz > az attention duz. freedom from what? > > dc > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > > > In consciousness there is movement; awareness by > > itself is motionless and timeless, here and now. > > -Nisargadatta Majaraj > > > > Attention as Bondage > > > > The movement of attention is what defines the " movement in > > consciousness " . > > > > There is not consciousness without attention. Where there > > has not been " attention to " (whatever) there is not > > " consciousness of " . What is outside the scope of attention > > is effectively unconscious. > > > > Bondage is the " restlessness " entailed in the movement of > > attention. It is not so much identification with a fictional > > " self " that is the root of bondage, but the *ongoing* > > identification with the movement of attention. > > > > Note that: > > > > Attention typically has a *compulsive quality*, as if the > > movement of attention were entirely compelled by the > > succession of presented stimuli. > > > > The restless movement of attention has a sense of " seeking " > > to it, as if it were *going somewhere*. > > > > Attention and Liberation > > > > If there is any freedom of choice at all, it would seem that > > it is in regard to attention. If there is *no choice* in > > regard to attention then there certainly can be no choice > > whatsoever (will assume this is obvious for now). > > > > So *is* there any choice in regard to attention? > > > > Typically that question will be regarded as pertaining to a > > choice about the *direction* of attention, i.e. about what > > attention is *to*. Here I will reject that as a viable option > > without much explanation. Briefly, any choice about the > > direction of attention must be based on *something* and > > whatever that is can only be conditioning, so there is no > > basis for any true freedom of choice in terms of the direction > > of attention. > > > > There is another way that choice can be applied to attention, > > and that pertains to *relaxation* of attention. Attention can > > always be softened, expanded. This possibility rarely occurs > > to anyone. But it is a possibility always available. > > > > In fact, when gone into and deeply explored, it will be > > discovered that attention can be expanded in a limitless way. > > > > Consider this passage from Krishnamurti: > > > > Have you ever sat very silently, not with your > > attention fixed on anything, not making an effort to > > concentrate, but with the mind very quiet, really > > still? Then you hear everything, don't you? You hear > > the far off noises as well as those that are nearer and > > those that are very close by, the immediate > > sounds—which means really that you are listening to > > everything. Your mind is not confined to one narrow > > little channel. If you can listen in this way, listen > > with ease, without strain, you will find an > > extraordinary change taking place within you, a change > > which comes without your volition, without your asking; > > and in that change there is great beauty and depth of > > insight. > > > > There he describes an attention that is not localized in any > > way, but in a sense " everywhere at once " . It is attention that > > is not bounded or constrained. > > > > And when attention is so fully expanded, there is movement of > > a different kind from the restless movement of the > > seeking/searching of constrained attention. The movement is > > now everywhere at once; it is a sparkle, a vitality that > > pervades all of experience. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > Freedom from what? Freedom from one's desire for freedom, from one's sense or insistence that one is not somehow free. Freedom from anxiety, expectation.....etc What do I care what I think? ~*~ 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.