Attention, Bondage, and Liberation (Werner & anyone)

[Guest guest]

Hi Werner (an anyone else who might be interested),

 

A lot here about words and their meanings. Before I start I

would like to note that while you use the word " attentive "

I did not use that word in my post, and it is not relevant

to what I was discussing.

 

In English " consciousness/conscious " and " awareness/aware "

are definitely distinct. There are experiments, for example,

where people are conditioned to respond to patterns of minute

air puffs in certain ways (say a certain muscle twitches)

where it is completely out of consciousness. The individual

is not " consciously aware " of the puffs (or the muscle twitch),

but unconsciously they obviously are because they respond

to them. [i wonder how that would be discussed in German.]

 

So (in English) awareness refers to all sensory input available

to the organism, while consciousness refers to a subset of that.

[There might be other definitions, but this is the one I am

using here.]

 

My post did not focus on consciousness but rather attention,

so I won't go into what is consciousness here. In my post I

made the claim that what we are conscious of, is precisely

what has fallen within our attention, so as I define attention

here you may consider my definition to apply to consciousness

also.

 

I find the Wikipedia definition of attention to be acceptable:

" Attention is the cognitive process of selectively concentrating

on one thing while ignoring other things. "

 

So if you are at your computer, then the phone rings so you

get up to answer it, whereupon you hear the voice of a friend

telling you about a certain event coming up etc...

your attention then has moved from whatever you were doing

on the computer to the ring of the phone to the process of

answering the phone to listening to the voice on the other

end to recognizing your friend to ... etc.

 

Or if you are doing something on your computer and suddenly

you think of something that you were supposed to do today,

think about that for a minute, and then back to the computer...

there your attention jumped to the memory of the thing you

were supposed to do etc.

 

Notice that the movement of attention in the above examples

is not volitional. Succeeding things *grabbed* your attention.

Perhaps movement of attention *can be* volitional. For example,

if I suggest to you that you stop reading and notice the

sensation of your body against whatever your are sitting on...

is that a volitional movement of attention? Well, perhaps not,

since if you did do that it was " programmed " by my suggestion.

But if I suggest that you stop reading and move your attention

to whatever you choose... would that be volitional? Again,

perhaps not, as your choosing would seem to be necessarily

based on your conditioning. [A point I made in the original

post]

 

You talk about it being impossible to " grasp what this

awareness is " . Hopefully my explanation above clears that

up for the context of what I was discussing. I don't define

awareness as a " mystical stuff " of some kind, just whatever

is available sensorily to the organism.

 

You say consciousness is its content. I wonder if you got that

from K. It's on okay notion, but wouldn't it be best to

throw overboard all that we can? What attention is *on* is

what is conscious, per what I have said here. And what it is

*on* is a content. So in that sense K's notion does fit here.

But best to throw that overboard and rediscover again and

again is my point of view.

 

You ask, " What is the driving force behind attention? "

Need there be one? We know that our attention moves from one

thing to another, as in the examples I give above. Your

attention is now on this sentence. But *now* it is on *this*

sentence You might think of attention as like a small

flashlight in a large dark house. Only a small area can be

illuminated at a time. Awareness is the entire house, attention

is the portion that is illuminated.

 

Regarding your question about motivation, that goes to the

question I originally raised about volition. Is the movement

of attention arbitrary and totally outside of our control?

Maybe it is the (arbitrary) movement of attention that creates

the imagination that there is an " us " moving it! Maybe what

we identify with is the movement of attention (it always seems

like it is 'ourself' that moves the attention from the computer

to the ring of the phone, for example). That is certainly a

way to look at it: i.e. thaat there is no volition (and hence

no " motivation " either), there is no " somebody " the movement of

attention pertains to, there is just a movie going on, the end.

 

Don't know if that addresses your questions or not. Please

let me know. I like the groundedness of this exchange as we

are focusing on the meaning of words and some pretty basic

aspects of perceptual experience.

 

Bill

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> 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

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Bill, to take the pains trying to help me out a bit.

 

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

>

> Hi Werner (an anyone else who might be interested),

>

> A lot here about words and their meanings. Before I start I

> would like to note that while you use the word " attentive "

> I did not use that word in my post, and it is not relevant

> to what I was discussing.

>

> In English " consciousness/conscious " and " awareness/aware "

> are definitely distinct. There are experiments, for example,

> where people are conditioned to respond to patterns of minute

> air puffs in certain ways (say a certain muscle twitches)

> where it is completely out of consciousness. The individual

> is not " consciously aware " of the puffs (or the muscle twitch),

> but unconsciously they obviously are because they respond

> to them. [i wonder how that would be discussed in German.]

>

> So (in English) awareness refers to all sensory input available

> to the organism, while consciousness refers to a subset of that.

> [There might be other definitions, but this is the one I am

> using here.]

>

 

That consciousness is seen as a subset of awareness won't help but it

seems just to be a way of definition. Sensory inputs which are not

conscious I never would call being aware - they are unaware. And when

there are following reactions then I would call them reflexes.

 

To call that which is unaware as awareness I must confess I have some

problems with.

 

> My post did not focus on consciousness but rather attention,

> so I won't go into what is consciousness here. In my post I

> made the claim that what we are conscious of, is precisely

> what has fallen within our attention, so as I define attention

> here you may consider my definition to apply to consciousness

> also.

>

> I find the Wikipedia definition of attention to be acceptable:

> " Attention is the cognitive process of selectively concentrating

> on one thing while ignoring other things. "

 

Ah ! I called that " focussing " . And with attention you meant to

focus. Now, its ok .... I thought with attention you meant some all

including God-knows-what thingy. And that's why I asked you if it is

kind of expectation what the stream of consciousness will bring

next

 

> So if you are at your computer, then the phone rings so you

> get up to answer it, whereupon you hear the voice of a friend

> telling you about a certain event coming up etc...

> your attention then has moved from whatever you were doing

> on the computer to the ring of the phone to the process of

> answering the phone to listening to the voice on the other

> end to recognizing your friend to ... etc.

>

> Or if you are doing something on your computer and suddenly

> you think of something that you were supposed to do today,

> think about that for a minute, and then back to the computer...

> there your attention jumped to the memory of the thing you

> were supposed to do etc.

>

 

Yes that's clear. I had no problems with that, Bill.

 

> Notice that the movement of attention in the above examples

> is not volitional. Succeeding things *grabbed* your attention.

 

Hmm, " volitional " is such a thing which one can go on discussing for

weeks and brings us back again to " choicelessness " . So maybe better

not ...

 

> Perhaps movement of attention *can be* volitional. For example,

> if I suggest to you that you stop reading and notice the

> sensation of your body against whatever your are sitting on...

> is that a volitional movement of attention? Well, perhaps not,

> since if you did do that it was " programmed " by my suggestion.

> But if I suggest that you stop reading and move your attention

> to whatever you choose... would that be volitional? Again,

> perhaps not, as your choosing would seem to be necessarily

> based on your conditioning. [A point I made in the original

> post]

>

> You talk about it being impossible to " grasp what this

> awareness is " . Hopefully my explanation above clears that

> up for the context of what I was discussing. I don't define

> awareness as a " mystical stuff " of some kind, just whatever

> is available sensorily to the organism.

>

> You say consciousness is its content. I wonder if you got that

> from K. It's on okay notion, but wouldn't it be best to

> throw overboard all that we can?

 

Yes, I got it from K and when I read it I didn't instantly run to my

neighbour who just was growing potatoes to tell him that exciting

news but I carried it with me for years and I still do. Amd I won't

throw it over board but from now on I will watch you Bill much more

carefully and I am sure I can give you some tips what you yourself

could throw overboard

 

> What attention is *on* is

> what is conscious, per what I have said here. And what it is

> *on* is a content. So in that sense K's notion does fit here.

> But best to throw that overboard and rediscover again and

> again is my point of view.

>

> You ask, " What is the driving force behind attention? "

> Need there be one? We know that our attention moves from one

> thing to another, as in the examples I give above. Your

> attention is now on this sentence. But *now* it is on *this*

> sentence You might think of attention as like a small

> flashlight in a large dark house. Only a small area can be

> illuminated at a time. Awareness is the entire house, attention

> is the portion that is illuminated.

>

 

Since I understood what you meant with attention namely to focus

those questions I worte are obsolete.

 

 

> Regarding your question about motivation, that goes to the

> question I originally raised about volition. Is the movement

> of attention arbitrary and totally outside of our control?

> Maybe it is the (arbitrary) movement of attention that creates

> the imagination that there is an " us " moving it! Maybe what

> we identify with is the movement of attention (it always seems

> like it is 'ourself' that moves the attention from the computer

> to the ring of the phone, for example). That is certainly a

> way to look at it: i.e. thaat there is no volition (and hence

> no " motivation " either), there is no " somebody " the movement of

> attention pertains to, there is just a movie going on, the end.

>

> Don't know if that addresses your questions or not. Please

> let me know. I like the groundedness of this exchange as we

> are focusing on the meaning of words and some pretty basic

> aspects of perceptual experience.

>

> Bill

>

 

Thanks a lot Bill. I still don't know what awareness is, just the

contrary it got pretty mysterious and it added some contradictions.

But maybe one day it will make click and it showed to be just all

mental humbug but useful as a topic for cocktail parties.

 

To be serious again - I have no idea what awareness is or does.

 

Werner

 

 

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > 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

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

L.E: Very smart people running back and forth bumping into scarecrows.

 

 

pliantheart <pliantheart

Nisargadatta

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:42:35 -0000

Re: Attention, Bondage, and Liberation (Werner & anyone)

 

 

Hi Werner (an anyone else who might be interested),

 

A lot here about words and their meanings. Before I start I

would like to note that while you use the word " attentive "

I did not use that word in my post, and it is not relevant

to what I was discussing.

 

In English " consciousness/conscious " and " awareness/aware "

are definitely distinct. There are experiments, for example,

where people are conditioned to respond to patterns of minute

air puffs in certain ways (say a certain muscle twitches)

where it is completely out of consciousness. The individual

is not " consciously aware " of the puffs (or the muscle twitch),

but unconsciously they obviously are because they respond

to them. [i wonder how that would be discussed in German.]

 

So (in English) awareness refers to all sensory input available

to the organism, while consciousness refers to a subset of that.

[There might be other definitions, but this is the one I am

using here.]

 

My post did not focus on consciousness but rather attention,

so I won't go into what is consciousness here. In my post I

made the claim that what we are conscious of, is precisely

what has fallen within our attention, so as I define attention

here you may consider my definition to apply to consciousness

also.

 

I find the Wikipedia definition of attention to be acceptable:

" Attention is the cognitive process of selectively concentrating

on one thing while ignoring other things. "

 

So if you are at your computer, then the phone rings so you

get up to answer it, whereupon you hear the voice of a friend

telling you about a certain event coming up etc...

your attention then has moved from whatever you were doing

on the computer to the ring of the phone to the process of

answering the phone to listening to the voice on the other

end to recognizing your friend to ... etc.

 

Or if you are doing something on your computer and suddenly

you think of something that you were supposed to do today,

think about that for a minute, and then back to the computer...

there your attention jumped to the memory of the thing you

were supposed to do etc.

 

Notice that the movement of attention in the above examples

is not volitional. Succeeding things *grabbed* your attention.

Perhaps movement of attention *can be* volitional. For example,

if I suggest to you that you stop reading and notice the

sensation of your body against whatever your are sitting on...

is that a volitional movement of attention? Well, perhaps not,

since if you did do that it was " programmed " by my suggestion.

But if I suggest that you stop reading and move your attention

to whatever you choose... would that be volitional? Again,

perhaps not, as your choosing would seem to be necessarily

based on your conditioning. [A point I made in the original

post]

 

You talk about it being impossible to " grasp what this

awareness is " . Hopefully my explanation above clears that

up for the context of what I was discussing. I don't define

awareness as a " mystical stuff " of some kind, just whatever

is available sensorily to the organism.

 

You say consciousness is its content. I wonder if you got that

from K. It's on okay notion, but wouldn't it be best to

throw overboard all that we can? What attention is *on* is

what is conscious, per what I have said here. And what it is

*on* is a content. So in that sense K's notion does fit here.

But best to throw that overboard and rediscover again and

again is my point of view.

 

You ask, " What is the driving force behind attention? "

Need there be one? We know that our attention moves from one

thing to another, as in the examples I give above. Your

attention is now on this sentence. But *now* it is on *this*

sentence You might think of attention as like a small

flashlight in a large dark house. Only a small area can be

illuminated at a time. Awareness is the entire house, attention

is the portion that is illuminated.

 

Regarding your question about motivation, that goes to the

question I originally raised about volition. Is the movement

of attention arbitrary and totally outside of our control?

Maybe it is the (arbitrary) movement of attention that creates

the imagination that there is an " us " moving it! Maybe what

we identify with is the movement of attention (it always seems

like it is 'ourself' that moves the attention from the computer

to the ring of the phone, for example). That is certainly a

way to look at it: i.e. thaat there is no volition (and hence

no " motivation " either), there is no " somebody " the movement of

attention pertains to, there is just a movie going on, the end.

 

Don't know if that addresses your questions or not. Please

let me know. I like the groundedness of this exchange as we

are focusing on the meaning of words and some pretty basic

aspects of perceptual experience.

 

Bill

 

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> 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

> >

>

 

 

 

______________________

Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM.

All on demand. Always Free.