Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 it seems thou there are differences in attention... one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... ....another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own any value to enjoy... can you say something about this ? ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > any value to enjoy... > can you say something about this ? > ...iietsa > yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > any value to enjoy... > can you say something about this ? > ...iietsa > always choose the lighter when no choice is lightest: no choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > any value to enjoy... > can you say something about this ? > ...iietsa > It is attention that creates the object. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > > any value to enjoy... > > can you say something about this ? > > ...iietsa > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > toombaru > No tension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > > > any value to enjoy... > > > can you say something about this ? > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > No tension > is attention the creator ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > any value to enjoy... > can you say something about this ? > ...iietsa when there is " no focusing at all " .....real Self is remaining.... there are no movements....no thoughts....and so also no " objects " ....which are there to enjoy.... there is the joy of being.... nothing else Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the > object... > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects > doesnt own > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > No tension > > > is attention the creator ? > " Brahma the creator Vishnu the preserver, Shiva the destroyer " Brahma the attention Vishnu the retention Shiva the dissension No tension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > > any value to enjoy... > > can you say something about this ? > > ...iietsa > > > > when there is " no focusing at all " .....real Self is remaining.... > there are no movements....no thoughts....and so also > no " objects " ....which are there to enjoy.... > > there is the joy of being.... > > nothing else > > Marc > focus/hocus f****us it's the stress, silly! No stress, no distress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > > > any value to enjoy... > > > can you say something about this ? > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > when there is " no focusing at all " .....real Self is remaining.... > > there are no movements....no thoughts....and so also > > no " objects " ....which are there to enjoy.... > > > > there is the joy of being.... > > > > nothing else > > > > Marc > > > > focus/hocus f****us > it's the stress, silly! No stress, no distress. > Woops! Sorry about that! (Twas I me my own self what put all the distress on the stress.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the > object... > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects > doesnt own > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > No tension > > > is attention the creator ? yes > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > > any value to enjoy... > > can you say something about this ? > > ...iietsa > > > > when there is " no focusing at all " .....real Self is remaining.... > there are no movements....no thoughts....and so also > no " objects " ....which are there to enjoy.... > > there is the joy of being.... > > nothing else > > Marc > The joy of being is your problem. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > any value to enjoy... > can you say something about this ? > ...iietsa yes... something along similar lines has occurred to me. there is attention with no focusing at all... as in the Krishnamurti quote: " 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. " The ordinary notion of attention would seem to imply focusing involved, but that is not the case. The *creation of an object* (the object exists only as per the perceptual process) is due to focusing. Attention that is " open " (as in the K quote) does not contemplate/define an object. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > > > any value to enjoy... > > > can you say something about this ? > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > when there is " no focusing at all " .....real Self is remaining.... > > there are no movements....no thoughts....and so also > > no " objects " ....which are there to enjoy.... > > > > there is the joy of being.... > > > > nothing else > > > > Marc > > > > > > The joy of being is your problem. > > > > toombaru > snicker, snicker (them's fighting words, given that Marc doesn't think he has a problem. But toomber expects that when M does, he'll key in. Nevertheless M is going to be rubbed the wrong way. T is banking on this, hoping to build up the kind of tension/attention for transformation. Will it work? Tune in to the next few posts to find out, kids) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > > any value to enjoy... > > can you say something about this ? > > ...iietsa > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > toombaru > focused attention creates an object. unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > > > any value to enjoy... > > > can you say something about this ? > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > focused attention creates an object. > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > > any value to enjoy... > > can you say something about this ? > > ...iietsa > > > > when there is " no focusing at all " .....real Self is remaining.... > there are no movements....no thoughts....and so also > no " objects " ....which are there to enjoy.... > > there is the joy of being.... > > nothing else > > Marc > beautifully said Marc! and in my view, absolutely true. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the object... > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects doesnt own > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > focused attention creates an object. > > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] > > > > > As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? > > > toombaru > I have no idea what you are saying. You surely can't mean by " working mind " unfocused attention. I explained " unfocused attention " with reference to the K quote. Do you think K was describing the " working mind " ? If you think it is an important point, please restate. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the > object... > > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects > doesnt own > > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > focused attention creates an object. > > > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] > > > > > > > > > > As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > I have no idea what you are saying. > > You surely can't mean by " working mind " unfocused > attention. I explained " unfocused attention " with > reference to the K quote. Do you think K was describing > the " working mind " ? > > If you think it is an important point, > please restate. > > > Bill > Ramesh and others speak of the 'working' or natural mind. This is the mind from which Nisargadatta spoke. The other mind, the 'thinking' mind is the source of the conceptual overlay.....the dream of separation...and its illusory self at the center. I was thinking that perhaps the natural mind was unfocused attention and the thinking mind was the focused or objective attention. Perhaps another way of speaking of the bicameral mind. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the > > object... > > > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects > > doesnt own > > > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > focused attention creates an object. > > > > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > I have no idea what you are saying. > > > > You surely can't mean by " working mind " unfocused > > attention. I explained " unfocused attention " with > > reference to the K quote. Do you think K was describing > > the " working mind " ? > > > > If you think it is an important point, > > please restate. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Ramesh and others speak of the 'working' or natural mind. > > This is the mind from which Nisargadatta spoke. > > > The other mind, the 'thinking' mind is the source of the conceptual > overlay.....the dream of separation...and its illusory self at the center. > > > I was thinking that perhaps the natural mind was unfocused attention > and the thinking mind was the focused or objective attention. > > Perhaps another way of speaking of the bicameral mind. > > > > > toombaru > Oh My! I had you so wrong! Then I agree with you completely. Though the term " natural mind " has more appeal for me, as " working mind " seems to imply effort (just connotation), and there is certainly no effort involved. could you say more about the bicameral mind? I am quite interested in that topic. And do you use that term with reference to the book by J. Jaynes? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the > > > object... > > > > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects > > > doesnt own > > > > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focused attention creates an object. > > > > > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea what you are saying. > > > > > > You surely can't mean by " working mind " unfocused > > > attention. I explained " unfocused attention " with > > > reference to the K quote. Do you think K was describing > > > the " working mind " ? > > > > > > If you think it is an important point, > > > please restate. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Ramesh and others speak of the 'working' or natural mind. > > > > This is the mind from which Nisargadatta spoke. > > > > > > The other mind, the 'thinking' mind is the source of the conceptual > > overlay.....the dream of separation...and its illusory self at the > center. > > > > > > I was thinking that perhaps the natural mind was unfocused attention > > and the thinking mind was the focused or objective attention. > > > > Perhaps another way of speaking of the bicameral mind. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Oh My! I had you so wrong! > > Then I agree with you completely. > Though the term " natural mind " has more appeal for > me, as " working mind " seems to imply effort > (just connotation), and there is certainly no effort > involved. > > could you say more about the bicameral mind? > I am quite interested in that topic. > > And do you use that term with reference to the > book by J. Jaynes? > > > Bill > " Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind " Have you read it? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the > > > > object... > > > > > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects > > > > doesnt own > > > > > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focused attention creates an object. > > > > > > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea what you are saying. > > > > > > > > You surely can't mean by " working mind " unfocused > > > > attention. I explained " unfocused attention " with > > > > reference to the K quote. Do you think K was describing > > > > the " working mind " ? > > > > > > > > If you think it is an important point, > > > > please restate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramesh and others speak of the 'working' or natural mind. > > > > > > This is the mind from which Nisargadatta spoke. > > > > > > > > > The other mind, the 'thinking' mind is the source of the conceptual > > > overlay.....the dream of separation...and its illusory self at the > > center. > > > > > > > > > I was thinking that perhaps the natural mind was unfocused attention > > > and the thinking mind was the focused or objective attention. > > > > > > Perhaps another way of speaking of the bicameral mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > Oh My! I had you so wrong! > > > > Then I agree with you completely. > > Though the term " natural mind " has more appeal for > > me, as " working mind " seems to imply effort > > (just connotation), and there is certainly no effort > > involved. > > > > could you say more about the bicameral mind? > > I am quite interested in that topic. > > > > And do you use that term with reference to the > > book by J. Jaynes? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > " Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind " > > > > Have you read it? > > > > toombaru > Or..........if you really want to blow your mind.....read " Consciousness Explained " by Daniel C. Dennett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 could you say that...??? personal love is when there is focusing on the object...(ego-duality) and impersonal love is when there is no focusing at all...(just being) ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > could you say that...??? > personal love is when there is focusing on the object...(ego-duality) > and impersonal love is when there is no focusing at all...(just being) > ...iietsa > all we can do is focusing-buisness...!!! but if we dont do this focusing-buisness...??? ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > could you say that...??? > > personal love is when there is focusing on the object...(ego-duality) > > and impersonal love is when there is no focusing at all...(just > being) > > ...iietsa > > > all we can do is focusing-buisness...!!! > but if we dont do this focusing-buisness...??? ....then non-doing or inaction (wu wei). there is still " apparent doing " of course, but there is no doer, so what unfolds unfolds naturally. Bill > ...iietsa > 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.