Guest guest Posted August 13, 2006 Report Share Posted August 13, 2006 If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is something to be aware of, and if so, how can there be one not two? The only thing I can say about the universe is that it is uneven. It's thinner in some places than in others. But what is it thinned out with? This implies something and nothing, again, two, not one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2006 Report Share Posted August 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is something to > be aware of, and if so, how can there be one not two? > > The only thing I can say about the universe is that it is uneven. It's > thinner in some places than in others. But what is it thinned out > with? This implies something and nothing, again, two, not one. > there is paradox there is both only one and only two and only many it's a question of emphasis as one's starting premise .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2006 Report Share Posted August 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is something to > be aware of, and if so, how can there be one not two? > > The only thing I can say about the universe is that it is uneven. It's > thinner in some places than in others. But what is it thinned out > with? This implies something and nothing, again, two, not one. > pure awareness is not a thing...it has no shape and yet it contains all shapes...it has no name and yet it contains all names... shapes and names are things...and all things is the same in nature... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2006 Report Share Posted August 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is something to > be aware of, stop right there... for the answer is no. > and if so, how can there be one not two? > > The only thing I can say about the universe is that it is uneven. It's > thinner in some places than in others. But what is it thinned out > with? This implies something and nothing, again, two, not one. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is something to > be aware of, and if so, how can there be one not two? > > The only thing I can say about the universe is that it is uneven. It's > thinner in some places than in others. But what is it thinned out > with? This implies something and nothing, again, two, not one. > does life come from the root shoot or fruit ? .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is something to > > be aware of, > stop right there... > for the answer is no. So there's just awareness and it's both subject and object? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > > > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is > something to > > > be aware of, > > stop right there... > > for the answer is no. > > So there's just awareness and it's both subject and object? > yesssssssss!!!! .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is > > something to > > > > be aware of, > > > stop right there... > > > for the answer is no. > > > > So there's just awareness and it's both subject and object? > yesssssssss!!!! awareness, subject, object and yesssssss!!! Of course, easy..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 " skywhilds " <skywords " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno@> > > > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is something to > > be aware of, and if so, how can there be one not two? > > one should be aware of Awareness, not of the 'universe' IMO Era > > The only thing I can say about the universe is that it is uneven. It's > > thinner in some places than in others. But what is it thinned out > > with? This implies something and nothing, again, two, not one. > > > > > > does life > > come from > > the > > root > > shoot > > or > > fruit > > > ? > > > > ... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno wrote: > > > > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is > something to > > > be aware of, > > stop right there... > > for the answer is no. > > So there's just awareness and it's both subject and object? > then you assume that there *must* be subject and object... consider the kind of unfocused attention Krishnamurti describes here: 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¡Xwhich 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 is no object in that... it is an open, unbroken field of awareness/sensation/life... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 one should be aware of Awareness, not of the 'universe' IMO Era >>>>>>>>>> yes, in essence I agree, which some difference in preferred wording as follows... awareness does not involve choice, IMO, but simply is. when attention becomes very still, very expanded, utterly diffuse then attention merges with awareness and that is conscious awareness which is what I see you as referring to. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno@> > wrote: > > > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is something to > > be aware of, and if so, how can there be one not two? > > > > The only thing I can say about the universe is that it is uneven. It's > > thinner in some places than in others. But what is it thinned out > > with? This implies something and nothing, again, two, not one. > > > does life > > come from > > the > > root > > shoot > > or > > fruit > > > ? > what comes...goes what goes...comes ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is > > something to > > > > be aware of, > > > stop right there... > > > for the answer is no. > > > > So there's just awareness and it's both subject and object? > > > > then you assume that there *must* be subject and object... > > consider the kind of unfocused attention Krishnamurti > describes here: > > 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¡Xwhich 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 is no object in that... it is an open, > unbroken field of awareness/sensation/life... > > > Bill > ....then you hear everything(objects)...the far off noises(objects) as well as those that are nearer(objects) and those that are very close by(objects)...you are listening to everything(objects)... ....iietsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " jasondedonno " <jasondedonno@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If we are pure awareness, then doesn't that mean there is > > > something to > > > > > be aware of, > > > > stop right there... > > > > for the answer is no. > > > > > > So there's just awareness and it's both subject and object? > > > > > > > then you assume that there *must* be subject and object... > > > > consider the kind of unfocused attention Krishnamurti > > describes here: > > > > 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¡Xwhich 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 is no object in that... it is an open, > > unbroken field of awareness/sensation/life... > > > > > > Bill > > > ...then you hear everything(objects)...the far off noises(objects) > as well as those that are nearer(objects) and those that are very > close by(objects)...you are listening to everything(objects)... > ...iietsa > no iietsa... not as objects... as I said: > > There is no object in that... it is an open, > > unbroken field of awareness/sensation/life... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 > one should be aware of Awareness, not of the 'universe' IMO > > Era > > >>>>>>>>>> > > yes, in essence I agree, which some difference > in preferred wording as follows... > > awareness does not involve choice, IMO, > but simply is. > > when attention becomes very still, very expanded, > utterly diffuse > > then attention merges with awareness > > and that is conscious awareness > > which is what I see you as referring to. > > > Bill > Yes, Bill. I found a website maybe it applies: " One practice of this kind involves paying silent attention to the basic sense that we exist. This has been proposed as a primary practice by Vedantists like Nisargadatta, and by the anonymous 14th century Christian who wrote The Book of Privy Counseling, and The Cloud of Unknowing. Nisargadatta called it meditation on the I AM sense, meditation on the basic sense of being. ..... In this practice I make the object of attention the subtle intuition that I exist — not the form which that existence takes, but the primal fact, or sense, or reality of existing. " <http://www.cop.com/info/twch9.html> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual wrote: > > > > > > one should be aware of Awareness, not of the 'universe' IMO > > > > Era > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > yes, in essence I agree, which some difference > > in preferred wording as follows... > > > > awareness does not involve choice, IMO, > > but simply is. > > > > when attention becomes very still, very expanded, > > utterly diffuse > > > > then attention merges with awareness > > > > and that is conscious awareness > > > > which is what I see you as referring to. > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes, Bill. > > I found a website maybe it applies: > > " One practice of this kind involves paying silent attention to the basic sense that we exist. This has been proposed as a primary practice by Vedantists like Nisargadatta, and by the anonymous 14th century Christian who wrote The Book of Privy Counseling, and The Cloud of Unknowing. > > Nisargadatta called it meditation on the I AM sense, meditation on the basic sense of being. > .... > In this practice I make the object of attention the subtle intuition that I exist — not the form which that existence takes, but the primal fact, or sense, or reality of existing. " > <http://www.cop.com/info/twch9.html> > In those terms then what I was saying would be to make the object of attention attention itself. To begin simply observe the movemnt of attention without attempting to change in any way. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > one should be aware of Awareness, not of the 'universe' IMO > > > > > > Era > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > yes, in essence I agree, which some difference > > > in preferred wording as follows... > > > > > > awareness does not involve choice, IMO, > > > but simply is. > > > > > > when attention becomes very still, very expanded, > > > utterly diffuse > > > > > > then attention merges with awareness > > > > > > and that is conscious awareness > > > > > > which is what I see you as referring to. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Yes, Bill. > > > > I found a website maybe it applies: > > > > " One practice of this kind involves paying silent attention to the > basic sense that we exist. This has been proposed as a primary > practice by Vedantists like Nisargadatta, and by the anonymous 14th > century Christian who wrote The Book of Privy Counseling, and The > Cloud of Unknowing. > > > > Nisargadatta called it meditation on the I AM sense, meditation on > the basic sense of being. > > .... > > In this practice I make the object of attention the subtle intuition > that I exist — not the form which that existence takes, but the primal > fact, or sense, or reality of existing. " > > <http://www.cop.com/info/twch9.html> > > > > In those terms then what I was saying > would be to make the object of attention > attention itself. > > To begin simply observe the movemnt of > attention without attempting to change > in any way. > > Bill > I Am IS the object of attention. In the myriad ways it shows up. How could this not be so if All This IS One??? Abide in the abiding. No more. No less. Anna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one should be aware of Awareness, not of the 'universe' IMO > > > > > > > > Era > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > yes, in essence I agree, which some difference > > > > in preferred wording as follows... > > > > > > > > awareness does not involve choice, IMO, > > > > but simply is. > > > > > > > > when attention becomes very still, very expanded, > > > > utterly diffuse > > > > > > > > then attention merges with awareness > > > > > > > > and that is conscious awareness > > > > > > > > which is what I see you as referring to. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Bill. > > > > > > I found a website maybe it applies: > > > > > > " One practice of this kind involves paying silent attention to > the > > basic sense that we exist. This has been proposed as a primary > > practice by Vedantists like Nisargadatta, and by the anonymous 14th > > century Christian who wrote The Book of Privy Counseling, and The > > Cloud of Unknowing. > > > > > > Nisargadatta called it meditation on the I AM sense, meditation > on > > the basic sense of being. > > > .... > > > In this practice I make the object of attention the subtle > intuition > > that I exist — not the form which that existence takes, but the > primal > > fact, or sense, or reality of existing. " > > > <http://www.cop.com/info/twch9.html> > > > > > > > In those terms then what I was saying > > would be to make the object of attention > > attention itself. > > > > To begin simply observe the movemnt of > > attention without attempting to change > > in any way. > > > > Bill > > > > > I Am IS the object of attention. In the myriad ways it shows up. > How could this not be so if All This IS One??? > > Abide in the abiding. No more. No less. > > Anna > p.s. non duality IS both and neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one should be aware of Awareness, not of the 'universe' IMO > > > > > > > > > > Era > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > yes, in essence I agree, which some difference > > > > > in preferred wording as follows... > > > > > > > > > > awareness does not involve choice, IMO, > > > > > but simply is. > > > > > > > > > > when attention becomes very still, very expanded, > > > > > utterly diffuse > > > > > > > > > > then attention merges with awareness > > > > > > > > > > and that is conscious awareness > > > > > > > > > > which is what I see you as referring to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Bill. > > > > > > > > I found a website maybe it applies: > > > > > > > > " One practice of this kind involves paying silent attention to > > the > > > basic sense that we exist. This has been proposed as a primary > > > practice by Vedantists like Nisargadatta, and by the anonymous > 14th > > > century Christian who wrote The Book of Privy Counseling, and The > > > Cloud of Unknowing. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta called it meditation on the I AM sense, > meditation > > on > > > the basic sense of being. > > > > .... > > > > In this practice I make the object of attention the subtle > > intuition > > > that I exist — not the form which that existence takes, but the > > primal > > > fact, or sense, or reality of existing. " > > > > <http://www.cop.com/info/twch9.html> > > > > > > > > > > In those terms then what I was saying > > > would be to make the object of attention > > > attention itself. > > > > > > To begin simply observe the movemnt of > > > attention without attempting to change > > > in any way. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > I Am IS the object of attention. In the myriad ways it shows up. > > How could this not be so if All This IS One??? > > > > Abide in the abiding. No more. No less. > > > > Anna > > > > > p.s. non duality IS both AND neither. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era Molnar " <n0ndual@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one should be aware of Awareness, not of the 'universe' IMO > > > > > > > > Era > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > yes, in essence I agree, which some difference > > > > in preferred wording as follows... > > > > > > > > awareness does not involve choice, IMO, > > > > but simply is. > > > > > > > > when attention becomes very still, very expanded, > > > > utterly diffuse > > > > > > > > then attention merges with awareness > > > > > > > > and that is conscious awareness > > > > > > > > which is what I see you as referring to. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Bill. > > > > > > I found a website maybe it applies: > > > > > > " One practice of this kind involves paying silent attention to > the > > basic sense that we exist. This has been proposed as a primary > > practice by Vedantists like Nisargadatta, and by the anonymous 14th > > century Christian who wrote The Book of Privy Counseling, and The > > Cloud of Unknowing. > > > > > > Nisargadatta called it meditation on the I AM sense, meditation > on > > the basic sense of being. > > > .... > > > In this practice I make the object of attention the subtle > intuition > > that I exist — not the form which that existence takes, but the > primal > > fact, or sense, or reality of existing. " > > > <http://www.cop.com/info/twch9.html> > > > > > > > In those terms then what I was saying > > would be to make the object of attention > > attention itself. > > > > To begin simply observe the movemnt of > > attention without attempting to change > > in any way. > > > > Bill > > > > > I Am IS the object of attention. In the myriad ways it shows up. > How could this not be so if All This IS One??? > > Abide in the abiding. No more. No less. > > Anna to equate " I am " with attention, as you suggest is very interesting in fact, per my view, that ends up correlating with Nisargadatta very well, since: a) I equate attention with consciousness, b) Nisargadatta equates " I am " with consciousness so we have c) attention = consciousness = I am it also makes intuitive sense that attention entails " I am " . as for " abide in abiding " ... very nice. Bill Note: re attention = consciousness notice that you can never have one without the other, which in strictly logical terms means they are equivalent. [i.e. If A implies B and B implies A then A is equivalent to B.] 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.