a gentle shift of attention\attention and identification

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual wrote:

>

> " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> >

> > The recognition of who we truly are - TRUTH - is the fruit that is

> > gained by a gentle shift of attention away from the ever-changing

> > content of experience to that which is aware of all experience in

> > every moment. This shift of attention is accompanied with the

> > realization that there never has been a separate I that acted in

> > or lead a personal life. It has always been life that has lived

> > itself through us. This gentle and natural returning of attention

> > to its own source that is awareness itself invites everything

> > outside and inside to come to complete resting, stillness and to a

> > most gentle softening yet without the sense of an experiencer. It

> > is resting that comes to rest. It is stillness that is still. It

> > is softening that returns to softness. There is nobody who

> > recognizes truth but it is truth that recognizes itself as being

> > that which is ever present, ever fresh and ever alive. It is love

> > that loves.

> > -Tathagatha

> >

>

>

> " .. shift from a focus on the content of Awareness to a focus on

Awareness itself. It can also be described as a shift in

identification, from identifying with the content of Awareness to

identifying with Awareness itself.

>

> As with images, it is possible - and often necessary in the carrying

out of daily routines - to shift back and forth between focusing on

the content of Awareness and focusing on Awareness itself. "

>

> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>

> There is actually only ever seeing, but at times there is the play

of identification as the character ? so it seems as though the

character is seeing, doing, all the rest of it.

> ~ Nathan Gill

 

What he is actually talking about is attention.

What he is calling " seeing " is the activity of

attention. Whatever attention " attends to " is

what is " seen " .

 

The identification (which seems so natural it is

almost never questioned) is with the movement of

attention (*not* with any 'character' so much).

If identification were a cake then the movement

of attention would be the cake and the 'character'

the icing on the cake.

 

When it is finally realized that the movement of

attention is not " caused " by any subject, that

the movement of attention is of its own self

nature... then attention can be simply witnessed

as something happening of its own. It is very

interesting to simply observe the movement of

attention because it is seen that the attention

indeed does move of its own, independently.

And then it can come to be seen (sooner or later)

that there is no " self " *behind* the movement

of attention.

 

Bill

 

 

> Nonduality FAQ

>

> Era

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote:

> >

> > " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> >

> > > The recognition of who we truly are - TRUTH - is the fruit that is

> > > gained by a gentle shift of attention away from the ever-changing

> > > content of experience to that which is aware of all experience in

> > > every moment. This shift of attention is accompanied with the

> > > realization that there never has been a separate I that acted in

> > > or lead a personal life. It has always been life that has lived

> > > itself through us. This gentle and natural returning of attention

> > > to its own source that is awareness itself invites everything

> > > outside and inside to come to complete resting, stillness and to a

> > > most gentle softening yet without the sense of an experiencer. It

> > > is resting that comes to rest. It is stillness that is still. It

> > > is softening that returns to softness. There is nobody who

> > > recognizes truth but it is truth that recognizes itself as being

> > > that which is ever present, ever fresh and ever alive. It is love

> > > that loves.

> > > -Tathagatha

> > >

> >

> >

> > " .. shift from a focus on the content of Awareness to a focus on

> Awareness itself. It can also be described as a shift in

> identification, from identifying with the content of Awareness to

> identifying with Awareness itself.

> >

> > As with images, it is possible - and often necessary in the carrying

> out of daily routines - to shift back and forth between focusing on

> the content of Awareness and focusing on Awareness itself. "

> >

> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> >

> > There is actually only ever seeing, but at times there is the play

> of identification as the character ? so it seems as though the

> character is seeing, doing, all the rest of it.

> > ~ Nathan Gill

>

> What he is actually talking about is attention.

> What he is calling " seeing " is the activity of

> attention. Whatever attention " attends to " is

> what is " seen " .

>

> The identification (which seems so natural it is

> almost never questioned) is with the movement of

> attention (*not* with any 'character' so much).

> If identification were a cake then the movement

> of attention would be the cake and the 'character'

> the icing on the cake.

>

> When it is finally realized that the movement of

> attention is not " caused " by any subject, that

> the movement of attention is of its own self

> nature... then attention can be simply witnessed

> as something happening of its own. It is very

> interesting to simply observe the movement of

> attention because it is seen that the attention

> indeed does move of its own, independently.

> And then it can come to be seen (sooner or later)

> that there is no " self " *behind* the movement

> of attention.

>

 

Bill, does what you are saying above fit in with the following?

 

I have a belief or story that says that a viewpoint or conscious

attention, comes into existence or is born within or as the egoic

universe at the same instant that an object of attention or anchor for

attention (anchor point), comes into existence.

 

Next the newly forming ego or viewpoint falls down from located

conscious attention to the fully egoic state of being that " thing "

which was previously observed.

 

Next we observe our " self " (the viewpoint that became its own solid

anchor point), from a second point of view (the watcher, and gradually

that second awareness also falls down into being that which it

observes. This goes on and on with each new " watcher " becoming the

solid egoic " watched " .

 

It is like a black hole drawing conscious awareness into the illusion

of being a " thing " .

 

I agree that there is no " self " behind the movement of attention, but

there is the reflection in the mirror, that is experienced as " self " ...

 

Do you not experience a sense of simultaneousness of viewer and viewed?

 

Stu

 

> Bill

>

>

> > Nonduality FAQ

> >

> > Era

> >

>

[Guest guest]

<snip>

 

> > >

> > > There is actually only ever seeing, but at times there is the

play

> > of identification as the character ? so it seems as though the

> > character is seeing, doing, all the rest of it.

> > > ~ Nathan Gill

> >

> > What he is actually talking about is attention.

> > What he is calling " seeing " is the activity of

> > attention. Whatever attention " attends to " is

> > what is " seen " .

> >

> > The identification (which seems so natural it is

> > almost never questioned) is with the movement of

> > attention (*not* with any 'character' so much).

> > If identification were a cake then the movement

> > of attention would be the cake and the 'character'

> > the icing on the cake.

> >

> > When it is finally realized that the movement of

> > attention is not " caused " by any subject, that

> > the movement of attention is of its own self

> > nature... then attention can be simply witnessed

> > as something happening of its own. It is very

> > interesting to simply observe the movement of

> > attention because it is seen that the attention

> > indeed does move of its own, independently.

> > And then it can come to be seen (sooner or later)

> > that there is no " self " *behind* the movement

> > of attention.

> >

>

> Bill, does what you are saying above fit in with the following?

>

> I have a belief or story that says that a viewpoint or conscious

> attention, comes into existence or is born within or as the egoic

> universe at the same instant that an object of attention or anchor

for

> attention (anchor point), comes into existence.

>

> Next the newly forming ego or viewpoint falls down from located

> conscious attention to the fully egoic state of being that " thing "

> which was previously observed.

>

> Next we observe our " self " (the viewpoint that became its own solid

> anchor point), from a second point of view (the watcher, and

gradually

> that second awareness also falls down into being that which it

> observes. This goes on and on with each new " watcher " becoming the

> solid egoic " watched " .

>

> It is like a black hole drawing conscious awareness into the

illusion

> of being a " thing " .

>

> I agree that there is no " self " behind the movement of attention,

but

> there is the reflection in the mirror, that is experienced

as " self " ...

 

If there is not identification with the movement of attention,

then can there be identification with such a " reflection " as

you describe?

 

If not, then seeing through any identification with the movement of

attention is sufficient to see through the entire false

indentification

process.

 

> Do you not experience a sense of simultaneousness of viewer and

viewed?

 

No.

 

How can any sense of a " viewer " arise when anything " arising "

is beheld with an immediacy that makes any sense of continuity

impossible?

 

Nothing is ever " solid " but only seems to be so when experience

flows with a sense of time that allows a sense of continuity.

 

So whenever there is a sense of continuity in experience,

whenever there is any sense of " persistence " in experience

(the same thing going on over time) then let that be a trigger

for experiencing whatever it is with intense immediacy that

breaks down the illusion of continuity.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

Bill

 

> Stu

[Guest guest]

" pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote:

>

> <snip>

>

> > > >

> > > > There is actually only ever seeing, but at times there is the

> play

> > > of identification as the character ? so it seems as though the

> > > character is seeing, doing, all the rest of it.

> > > > ~ Nathan Gill

> > >

> > > What he is actually talking about is attention.

> > > What he is calling " seeing " is the activity of

> > > attention. Whatever attention " attends to " is

> > > what is " seen " .

> > >

> > > The identification (which seems so natural it is

> > > almost never questioned) is with the movement of

> > > attention (*not* with any 'character' so much).

> > > If identification were a cake then the movement

> > > of attention would be the cake and the 'character'

> > > the icing on the cake.

> > >

> > > When it is finally realized that the movement of

> > > attention is not " caused " by any subject, that

> > > the movement of attention is of its own self

> > > nature... then attention can be simply witnessed

> > > as something happening of its own. It is very

> > > interesting to simply observe the movement of

> > > attention because it is seen that the attention

> > > indeed does move of its own, independently.

> > > And then it can come to be seen (sooner or later)

> > > that there is no " self " *behind* the movement

> > > of attention.

> > >

> >

> > Bill, does what you are saying above fit in with the following?

> >

> > I have a belief or story that says that a viewpoint or conscious

> > attention, comes into existence or is born within or as the egoic

> > universe at the same instant that an object of attention or anchor

> for

> > attention (anchor point), comes into existence.

> >

> > Next the newly forming ego or viewpoint falls down from located

> > conscious attention to the fully egoic state of being that " thing "

> > which was previously observed.

> >

> > Next we observe our " self " (the viewpoint that became its own solid

> > anchor point), from a second point of view (the watcher, and

> gradually

> > that second awareness also falls down into being that which it

> > observes. This goes on and on with each new " watcher " becoming the

> > solid egoic " watched " .

> >

> > It is like a black hole drawing conscious awareness into the

> illusion

> > of being a " thing " .

> >

> > I agree that there is no " self " behind the movement of attention,

> but

> > there is the reflection in the mirror, that is experienced

> as " self " ...

>

> If there is not identification with the movement of attention,

> then can there be identification with such a " reflection " as

> you describe?

>

> If not, then seeing through any identification with the movement of

> attention is sufficient to see through the entire false

> indentification

> process.

>

> > Do you not experience a sense of simultaneousness of viewer and

> viewed?

>

> No.

>

> How can any sense of a " viewer " arise when anything " arising "

> is beheld with an immediacy that makes any sense of continuity

> impossible?

>

> Nothing is ever " solid " but only seems to be so when experience

> flows with a sense of time that allows a sense of continuity.

>

> So whenever there is a sense of continuity in experience,

> whenever there is any sense of " persistence " in experience

> (the same thing going on over time) then let that be a trigger

> for experiencing whatever it is with intense immediacy that

> breaks down the illusion of continuity.

>

> Hope that makes sense.

 

Yes it makes sense, but how to do it eludes me. Identification with

things is the result of interest that then becomes desire.

While living in the moment or Now, seems so hard to do...

" Intense immediacy " does not come easily for me because it is not

enticing to the ego... I imagine that it is the result of strict

discipline that does not offer any rewards at first?

 

Stu

 

>

> Bill

>

> > Stu

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn

wrote:

>

> " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> wrote:

> >

> > <snip>

> >

> > > > >

> > > > > There is actually only ever seeing, but at times there is

the

> > play

> > > > of identification as the character ? so it seems as though

the

> > > > character is seeing, doing, all the rest of it.

> > > > > ~ Nathan Gill

> > > >

> > > > What he is actually talking about is attention.

> > > > What he is calling " seeing " is the activity of

> > > > attention. Whatever attention " attends to " is

> > > > what is " seen " .

> > > >

> > > > The identification (which seems so natural it is

> > > > almost never questioned) is with the movement of

> > > > attention (*not* with any 'character' so much).

> > > > If identification were a cake then the movement

> > > > of attention would be the cake and the 'character'

> > > > the icing on the cake.

> > > >

> > > > When it is finally realized that the movement of

> > > > attention is not " caused " by any subject, that

> > > > the movement of attention is of its own self

> > > > nature... then attention can be simply witnessed

> > > > as something happening of its own. It is very

> > > > interesting to simply observe the movement of

> > > > attention because it is seen that the attention

> > > > indeed does move of its own, independently.

> > > > And then it can come to be seen (sooner or later)

> > > > that there is no " self " *behind* the movement

> > > > of attention.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Bill, does what you are saying above fit in with the

following?

> > >

> > > I have a belief or story that says that a viewpoint or

conscious

> > > attention, comes into existence or is born within or as the

egoic

> > > universe at the same instant that an object of attention or

anchor

> > for

> > > attention (anchor point), comes into existence.

> > >

> > > Next the newly forming ego or viewpoint falls down from located

> > > conscious attention to the fully egoic state of being

that " thing "

> > > which was previously observed.

> > >

> > > Next we observe our " self " (the viewpoint that became its own

solid

> > > anchor point), from a second point of view (the watcher, and

> > gradually

> > > that second awareness also falls down into being that which it

> > > observes. This goes on and on with each new " watcher " becoming

the

> > > solid egoic " watched " .

> > >

> > > It is like a black hole drawing conscious awareness into the

> > illusion

> > > of being a " thing " .

> > >

> > > I agree that there is no " self " behind the movement of

attention,

> > but

> > > there is the reflection in the mirror, that is experienced

> > as " self " ...

> >

> > If there is not identification with the movement of attention,

> > then can there be identification with such a " reflection " as

> > you describe?

> >

> > If not, then seeing through any identification with the movement

of

> > attention is sufficient to see through the entire false

> > indentification

> > process.

> >

> > > Do you not experience a sense of simultaneousness of viewer

and

> > viewed?

> >

> > No.

> >

> > How can any sense of a " viewer " arise when anything " arising "

> > is beheld with an immediacy that makes any sense of continuity

> > impossible?

> >

> > Nothing is ever " solid " but only seems to be so when experience

> > flows with a sense of time that allows a sense of continuity.

> >

> > So whenever there is a sense of continuity in experience,

> > whenever there is any sense of " persistence " in experience

> > (the same thing going on over time) then let that be a trigger

> > for experiencing whatever it is with intense immediacy that

> > breaks down the illusion of continuity.

> >

> > Hope that makes sense.

>

> Yes it makes sense, but how to do it eludes me. Identification

with

> things is the result of interest that then becomes desire.

> While living in the moment or Now, seems so hard to do...

> " Intense immediacy " does not come easily for me because it is not

> enticing to the ego... I imagine that it is the result of strict

> discipline that does not offer any rewards at first?

>

> Stu

>

> >

> > Bill

> >

> > > Stu

> >

>

the present moment is all there is

there is nothing more than this moment

even thoughts about tomorrow or yesterday...

is in the moment...

and whatever the moment is

you just dont qualify it

dont judge it being this or that

its not your buisness at all

let it be on it own

there is nothing wrong in what is

only welcome what is

without any resistance whatsoever...

and your natural being will reveal itself

being beyond what is and what is not

....iietsa

[Guest guest]

" iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> wrote:

> > >

> > > <snip>

> > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is actually only ever seeing, but at times there is

> the

> > > play

> > > > > of identification as the character ? so it seems as though

> the

> > > > > character is seeing, doing, all the rest of it.

> > > > > > ~ Nathan Gill

> > > > >

> > > > > What he is actually talking about is attention.

> > > > > What he is calling " seeing " is the activity of

> > > > > attention. Whatever attention " attends to " is

> > > > > what is " seen " .

> > > > >

> > > > > The identification (which seems so natural it is

> > > > > almost never questioned) is with the movement of

> > > > > attention (*not* with any 'character' so much).

> > > > > If identification were a cake then the movement

> > > > > of attention would be the cake and the 'character'

> > > > > the icing on the cake.

> > > > >

> > > > > When it is finally realized that the movement of

> > > > > attention is not " caused " by any subject, that

> > > > > the movement of attention is of its own self

> > > > > nature... then attention can be simply witnessed

> > > > > as something happening of its own. It is very

> > > > > interesting to simply observe the movement of

> > > > > attention because it is seen that the attention

> > > > > indeed does move of its own, independently.

> > > > > And then it can come to be seen (sooner or later)

> > > > > that there is no " self " *behind* the movement

> > > > > of attention.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Bill, does what you are saying above fit in with the

> following?

> > > >

> > > > I have a belief or story that says that a viewpoint or

> conscious

> > > > attention, comes into existence or is born within or as the

> egoic

> > > > universe at the same instant that an object of attention or

> anchor

> > > for

> > > > attention (anchor point), comes into existence.

> > > >

> > > > Next the newly forming ego or viewpoint falls down from located

> > > > conscious attention to the fully egoic state of being

> that " thing "

> > > > which was previously observed.

> > > >

> > > > Next we observe our " self " (the viewpoint that became its own

> solid

> > > > anchor point), from a second point of view (the watcher, and

> > > gradually

> > > > that second awareness also falls down into being that which it

> > > > observes. This goes on and on with each new " watcher " becoming

> the

> > > > solid egoic " watched " .

> > > >

> > > > It is like a black hole drawing conscious awareness into the

> > > illusion

> > > > of being a " thing " .

> > > >

> > > > I agree that there is no " self " behind the movement of

> attention,

> > > but

> > > > there is the reflection in the mirror, that is experienced

> > > as " self " ...

> > >

> > > If there is not identification with the movement of attention,

> > > then can there be identification with such a " reflection " as

> > > you describe?

> > >

> > > If not, then seeing through any identification with the movement

> of

> > > attention is sufficient to see through the entire false

> > > indentification

> > > process.

> > >

> > > > Do you not experience a sense of simultaneousness of viewer

> and

> > > viewed?

> > >

> > > No.

> > >

> > > How can any sense of a " viewer " arise when anything " arising "

> > > is beheld with an immediacy that makes any sense of continuity

> > > impossible?

> > >

> > > Nothing is ever " solid " but only seems to be so when experience

> > > flows with a sense of time that allows a sense of continuity.

> > >

> > > So whenever there is a sense of continuity in experience,

> > > whenever there is any sense of " persistence " in experience

> > > (the same thing going on over time) then let that be a trigger

> > > for experiencing whatever it is with intense immediacy that

> > > breaks down the illusion of continuity.

> > >

> > > Hope that makes sense.

> >

> > Yes it makes sense, but how to do it eludes me. Identification

> with

> > things is the result of interest that then becomes desire.

> > While living in the moment or Now, seems so hard to do...

> > " Intense immediacy " does not come easily for me because it is not

> > enticing to the ego... I imagine that it is the result of strict

> > discipline that does not offer any rewards at first?

> >

> > Stu

> >

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> > > > Stu

> > >

> >

> the present moment is all there is

> there is nothing more than this moment

> even thoughts about tomorrow or yesterday...

> is in the moment...

> and whatever the moment is

> you just dont qualify it

> dont judge it being this or that

> its not your buisness at all

> let it be on it own

> there is nothing wrong in what is

> only welcome what is

> without any resistance whatsoever...

> and your natural being will reveal itself

> being beyond what is and what is not

> ...iietsa

>

 

My first thought when reading your reply was: " That seems easy enough,

but you are only talking about time and I am also talking about the

viewer becoming the thing viewed, being sucked into being the thing my

attention is on. "

 

Then I noticed that as I did as you suggested that " thingness " seemed

to stop happening:-)

Thanks:-)

Stu

[Guest guest]

<stuartkfmn wrote:

>

> " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> > the present moment is all there is

> > there is nothing more than this moment

> > even thoughts about tomorrow or yesterday...

> > is in the moment...

> > and whatever the moment is

> > you just dont qualify it

> > dont judge it being this or that

> > its not your buisness at all

> > let it be on it own

> > there is nothing wrong in what is

> > only welcome what is

> > without any resistance whatsoever...

> > and your natural being will reveal itself

> > being beyond what is and what is not

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> My first thought when reading your reply was: " That seems easy enough,

> but you are only talking about time and I am also talking about the

> viewer becoming the thing viewed, being sucked into being the thing my

> attention is on. "

>

> Then I noticed that as I did as you suggested that " thingness "

 

 

 

 

I think, thats' the idea: to be a 'witness'

 

-to be absorbed is on an other page..

 

 

 

> seemed

> to stop happening:-)

> Thanks:-)

> Stu

>

 

Era

[Guest guest]

" stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote:

>

> " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > <snip>

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is actually only ever seeing, but at times there is

> > the

> > > > play

> > > > > > of identification as the character ? so it seems as though

> > the

> > > > > > character is seeing, doing, all the rest of it.

> > > > > > > ~ Nathan Gill

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What he is actually talking about is attention.

> > > > > > What he is calling " seeing " is the activity of

> > > > > > attention. Whatever attention " attends to " is

> > > > > > what is " seen " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The identification (which seems so natural it is

> > > > > > almost never questioned) is with the movement of

> > > > > > attention (*not* with any 'character' so much).

> > > > > > If identification were a cake then the movement

> > > > > > of attention would be the cake and the 'character'

> > > > > > the icing on the cake.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When it is finally realized that the movement of

> > > > > > attention is not " caused " by any subject, that

> > > > > > the movement of attention is of its own self

> > > > > > nature... then attention can be simply witnessed

> > > > > > as something happening of its own. It is very

> > > > > > interesting to simply observe the movement of

> > > > > > attention because it is seen that the attention

> > > > > > indeed does move of its own, independently.

> > > > > > And then it can come to be seen (sooner or later)

> > > > > > that there is no " self " *behind* the movement

> > > > > > of attention.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill, does what you are saying above fit in with the

> > following?

> > > > >

> > > > > I have a belief or story that says that a viewpoint or

> > conscious

> > > > > attention, comes into existence or is born within or as the

> > egoic

> > > > > universe at the same instant that an object of attention or

> > anchor

> > > > for

> > > > > attention (anchor point), comes into existence.

> > > > >

> > > > > Next the newly forming ego or viewpoint falls down from located

> > > > > conscious attention to the fully egoic state of being

> > that " thing "

> > > > > which was previously observed.

> > > > >

> > > > > Next we observe our " self " (the viewpoint that became its own

> > solid

> > > > > anchor point), from a second point of view (the watcher, and

> > > > gradually

> > > > > that second awareness also falls down into being that which it

> > > > > observes. This goes on and on with each new " watcher " becoming

> > the

> > > > > solid egoic " watched " .

> > > > >

> > > > > It is like a black hole drawing conscious awareness into the

> > > > illusion

> > > > > of being a " thing " .

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree that there is no " self " behind the movement of

> > attention,

> > > > but

> > > > > there is the reflection in the mirror, that is experienced

> > > > as " self " ...

> > > >

> > > > If there is not identification with the movement of attention,

> > > > then can there be identification with such a " reflection " as

> > > > you describe?

> > > >

> > > > If not, then seeing through any identification with the movement

> > of

> > > > attention is sufficient to see through the entire false

> > > > indentification

> > > > process.

> > > >

> > > > > Do you not experience a sense of simultaneousness of viewer

> > and

> > > > viewed?

> > > >

> > > > No.

> > > >

> > > > How can any sense of a " viewer " arise when anything " arising "

> > > > is beheld with an immediacy that makes any sense of continuity

> > > > impossible?

> > > >

> > > > Nothing is ever " solid " but only seems to be so when experience

> > > > flows with a sense of time that allows a sense of continuity.

> > > >

> > > > So whenever there is a sense of continuity in experience,

> > > > whenever there is any sense of " persistence " in experience

> > > > (the same thing going on over time) then let that be a trigger

> > > > for experiencing whatever it is with intense immediacy that

> > > > breaks down the illusion of continuity.

> > > >

> > > > Hope that makes sense.

> > >

> > > Yes it makes sense, but how to do it eludes me. Identification

> > with

> > > things is the result of interest that then becomes desire.

> > > While living in the moment or Now, seems so hard to do...

> > > " Intense immediacy " does not come easily for me because it is not

> > > enticing to the ego... I imagine that it is the result of strict

> > > discipline that does not offer any rewards at first?

> > >

> > > Stu

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > > >

> > > > > Stu

> > > >

> > >

> > the present moment is all there is

> > there is nothing more than this moment

> > even thoughts about tomorrow or yesterday...

> > is in the moment...

> > and whatever the moment is

> > you just dont qualify it

> > dont judge it being this or that

> > its not your buisness at all

> > let it be on it own

> > there is nothing wrong in what is

> > only welcome what is

> > without any resistance whatsoever...

> > and your natural being will reveal itself

> > being beyond what is and what is not

> > ...iietsa

> >

>

> My first thought when reading your reply was: " That seems easy enough,

> but you are only talking about time and I am also talking about the

> viewer becoming the thing viewed, being sucked into being the thing my

> attention is on. "

>

> Then I noticed that as I did as you suggested that " thingness " seemed

> to stop happening:-)

> Thanks:-)

> Stu

>

 

Just wanted to add one thing I just noticed. Attention, and that

which is attended or noticed, are two side of a coin... a polarity?

 

Stu

[Guest guest]

" stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@>

 

 

> > " That seems easy enough,

> > but you are only talking about time and I am also talking about the

> > viewer becoming the thing viewed, being sucked into being the thing my

> > attention is on. "

> >

> > Then I noticed that as I did as you suggested that " thingness " seemed

> > to stop happening:-)

> > Thanks:-)

> > Stu

> >

>

> Just wanted to add one thing I just noticed. Attention, and that

> which is attended or noticed, are two side of a coin... a polarity?

 

 

 

I don't know Stu

 

 

" .. shift from a focus on the content of Awareness to a focus on Awareness

itself. It can also be described as a shift in identification, from identifying

with the content of Awareness to identifying with Awareness itself.

 

As with images, it is possible - and often necessary in the carrying out of

daily routines - to shift back and forth between focusing on the content of

Awareness and focusing on Awareness itself. "

 

 

from Nonduality FAQ 3millenneum

 

> Stu

 

Era

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual wrote:

>

> " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn@>

>

>

> > > " That seems easy enough,

> > > but you are only talking about time and I am also talking about the

> > > viewer becoming the thing viewed, being sucked into being the

thing my

> > > attention is on. "

> > >

> > > Then I noticed that as I did as you suggested that " thingness "

seemed

> > > to stop happening:-)

> > > Thanks:-)

> > > Stu

> > >

> >

> > Just wanted to add one thing I just noticed. Attention, and that

> > which is attended or noticed, are two side of a coin... a polarity?

>

>

>

> I don't know Stu

>

>

> " .. shift from a focus on the content of Awareness to a focus on

Awareness

> itself. It can also be described as a shift in identification, from

identifying

> with the content of Awareness to identifying with Awareness itself.

>

> As with images, it is possible - and often necessary in the carrying

out of

> daily routines - to shift back and forth between focusing on the

content of

> Awareness and focusing on Awareness itself. "

>

>

> from Nonduality FAQ 3millenneum

 

I was about to ask what that is but have found 3rd millenneum gateway

and will read it:-)

 

Stu

 

>

> > Stu

>

> Era

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

 

> the present moment is all there is

> there is nothing more than this moment

> even thoughts about tomorrow or yesterday...

> is in the moment...

> and whatever the moment is

> you just dont qualify it

> dont judge it being this or that

> its not your buisness at all

> let it be on it own

> there is nothing wrong in what is

> only welcome what is

> without any resistance whatsoever...

> and your natural being will reveal itself

> being beyond what is and what is not

> ...iietsa

 

resistance also is of the now-moment, as is.

 

the contents of this moment, whatever they may be,

and the moment, are not-two.

 

now.

 

there is no other now.

 

no outside to it.

 

whatever seems to be in it, doesn't possess any

location in it.

 

because there is no separation.

 

-- D.