Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Any identification is ultimately identification with attention. Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. But X is X only as per its selection for consideration by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis of identification. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Any identification is ultimately identification > with attention. > > Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > of identification. > > > Bill > ..............and the basis of entitification. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Any identification is ultimately identification > > with attention. > > > > Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > of identification. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > .............and the basis of entitification. > > > toombaru the basis and bias of any and all fications. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Any identification is ultimately identification > > > with attention. > > > > > > Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > > But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > > by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > > of identification. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > .............and the basis of entitification. > > > > > > toombaru > > > the basis and bias of any and all fications. > > .b b.b. without qualifications. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Any identification is ultimately identification > > > with attention. > > > > > > Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > > But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > > by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > > of identification. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > .............and the basis of entitification. > > > > > > toombaru > > > the basis and bias of any and all fications. > > .b b.b. > .........and the basis of basis. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Any identification is ultimately identification > > > > with attention. > > > > > > > > Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > > > But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > > > by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > > > of identification. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > .............and the basis of entitification. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > the basis and bias of any and all fications. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > ........and the basis of basis. > > > > > toombaru basically...yes. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Any identification is ultimately identification > > > with attention. > > > > > > Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > > But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > > by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > > of identification. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > .............and the basis of entitification. > > > > > > toombaru > > > the basis and bias of any and all fications. > > .b b.b. > well put and interesting point about bias there. because yes, there is inherently a bias entailed. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Any identification is ultimately identification > > > > with attention. > > > > > > > > Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > > > But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > > > by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > > > of identification. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > .............and the basis of entitification. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > the basis and bias of any and all fications. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > ........and the basis of basis. > > > > > toombaru > based on ...... ? Bill ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Bill wrote... < Any identification is ultimately identification< with attention.< Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X.< But X is X only as per its selection for consideration< by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis< of identification.< Bill Hi Bill, I can see that identification depends upon attention. Also, not to quibble, it seems to me that attention does not have to inevitably result in identification or entification as toombaru pointed out (which I also agree with). In other words, attention can be paid without identification or entification taking place as long as one is savvy to this mechanism and dynamic. But, there can be no identification and/or entification without attention. Attention = drawing imaginary boundaries around an aspect of what's in the field of perception which can then be taken as *real* or "independently existing" thereby resulting in the "thing-ing" of oneself, others, ants, hippopotami, volcanoes, cream pies, God, Devil, Heysoose, etc ad infinitum. All identification and/or entification depends on attention; but attention does not always (or even necessarily) create identification and/or entification = suffering, the search to end suffering, etc! Any comments, thoughts, or clarification? Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 > Bill wrote... > > < Any identification is ultimately identification > < with attention. > < Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > < But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > < by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > < of identification. > < Bill > > Hi Bill, > > I can see that identification depends upon attention. > Also, not to quibble, it seems to me that attention does > not have to inevitably result in identification or > entification as toombaru pointed out (which I also agree > with). > In other words, attention can be paid without > identification or entification taking place as long as one > is savvy to this mechanism and dynamic. But, there can be > no identification and/or entification without attention. > Attention = drawing imaginary boundaries around an aspect > of what's in the field of perception which can then be > taken as *real* or " independently existing " thereby > resulting in the " thing-ing " of oneself, others, ants, > hippopotami, volcanoes, cream pies, God, Devil, Heysoose, > etc ad infinitum. > All identification and/or entification depends on > attention; but attention does not always (or even > necessarily) create identification and/or entification = > suffering, the search to end suffering, etc! > Any comments, thoughts, or clarification? > > Michael I totally agree Michael. You are speaking to a finer point regarding attention. Such movement of attention that you suggest may occur. I might term it " movement of attention without purpose " . It is attention that is *not directed*. Even that form of attention can dissolve such that there is no apparent movement of attention at all, which I refer to as attention that is " fully expanded " (which is to say boundless). I further consider that fully expanded attention *merges* with awareness (which is always " fully expanded " ). While the no-identification form of attention is not " dual " per se, it is only with fully expanded attention that all sense of distinction is completely erased. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 So we've arrived at the conclusion that 1) expansion of attention (no-identification) and 2) selection for consideration (identification) are two functions of entification. Didn't the Hindus figure that out, like before Jesus? Atman and Brahman. The self and the Self. So now what do you DO with this understanding of awareness vs. attention, besides make semantic jokes?Just curious.billrishel <illusyn wrote: > Bill wrote... > > < Any identification is ultimately identification > < with attention. > < Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > < But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > < by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > < of identification. > < Bill > > Hi Bill, > > I can see that identification depends upon attention. > Also, not to quibble, it seems to me that attention does > not have to inevitably result in identification or > entification as toombaru pointed out (which I also agree > with). > In other words, attention can be paid without > identification or entification taking place as long as one > is savvy to this mechanism and dynamic. But, there can be > no identification and/or entification without attention. > Attention = drawing imaginary boundaries around an aspect > of what's in the field of perception which can then be > taken as *real* or "independently existing" thereby > resulting in the "thing-ing" of oneself, others, ants, > hippopotami, volcanoes, cream pies, God, Devil, Heysoose, > etc ad infinitum. > All identification and/or entification depends on > attention; but attention does not always (or even > necessarily) create identification and/or entification = > suffering, the search to end suffering, etc! > Any comments, thoughts, or clarification? > > Michael I totally agree Michael. You are speaking to a finer point regarding attention. Such movement of attention that you suggest may occur. I might term it "movement of attention without purpose". It is attention that is *not directed*. Even that form of attention can dissolve such that there is no apparent movement of attention at all, which I refer to as attention that is "fully expanded" (which is to say boundless). I further consider that fully expanded attention *merges* with awareness (which is always "fully expanded"). While the no-identification form of attention is not "dual" per se, it is only with fully expanded attention that all sense of distinction is completely erased. Bill "Murder is the ultimate response of a human nature that denies reality in favor of its own illusions. (Especially self-murder.)"--from the new book Revolutionary Spirituality: Awakening to Your True Self by Steven E. Baxter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Steven E. Baxter " <revspirit wrote: > > So we've arrived at the conclusion that 1) expansion of attention (no-identification) and 2) selection for consideration (identification) are two functions of entification. > > Didn't the Hindus figure that out, like before Jesus? Atman and Brahman. The self and the Self. > > So now what do you DO with this understanding of awareness vs. attention, besides make semantic jokes? > > Just curious. 'you'..that's right...'you'........ can 'do' nothing! and 'that's' NOT a semantic joke. ..b b.b. .......nnb............. > billrishel <illusyn wrote: > Bill wrote... > > > > < Any identification is ultimately identification > > < with attention. > > > < Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > < But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > < by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > < of identification. > > > < Bill > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > I can see that identification depends upon attention. > > Also, not to quibble, it seems to me that attention does > > not have to inevitably result in identification or > > entification as toombaru pointed out (which I also agree > > with). > > > In other words, attention can be paid without > > identification or entification taking place as long as one > > is savvy to this mechanism and dynamic. But, there can be > > no identification and/or entification without attention. > > Attention = drawing imaginary boundaries around an aspect > > of what's in the field of perception which can then be > > taken as *real* or " independently existing " thereby > > resulting in the " thing-ing " of oneself, others, ants, > > hippopotami, volcanoes, cream pies, God, Devil, Heysoose, > > etc ad infinitum. > > > All identification and/or entification depends on > > attention; but attention does not always (or even > > necessarily) create identification and/or entification = > > suffering, the search to end suffering, etc! > > > Any comments, thoughts, or clarification? > > > > Michael > > I totally agree Michael. You are speaking to a finer point > regarding attention. > > Such movement of attention that you suggest may occur. > I might term it " movement of attention without purpose " . > It is attention that is *not directed*. > > Even that form of attention can dissolve such that there > is no apparent movement of attention at all, which I refer > to as attention that is " fully expanded " (which is to > say boundless). > > I further consider that fully expanded attention *merges* > with awareness (which is always " fully expanded " ). > > While the no-identification form of attention is not " dual " > per se, it is only with fully expanded attention that all > sense of distinction is completely erased. > > Bill " Murder is the ultimate response of a human nature that denies reality in favor of its own illusions. (Especially self-murder.) " > > --from the new book Revolutionary Spirituality: Awakening to Your True Self by Steven E. Baxter > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Bill wrote... > > > > < Any identification is ultimately identification > > < with attention. > > > < Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > < But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > < by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > < of identification. > > > < Bill > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > I can see that identification depends upon attention. > > Also, not to quibble, it seems to me that attention does > > not have to inevitably result in identification or > > entification as toombaru pointed out (which I also agree > > with). > > > In other words, attention can be paid without > > identification or entification taking place as long as one > > is savvy to this mechanism and dynamic. But, there can be > > no identification and/or entification without attention. > > Attention = drawing imaginary boundaries around an aspect > > of what's in the field of perception which can then be > > taken as *real* or " independently existing " thereby > > resulting in the " thing-ing " of oneself, others, ants, > > hippopotami, volcanoes, cream pies, God, Devil, Heysoose, > > etc ad infinitum. > > > All identification and/or entification depends on > > attention; but attention does not always (or even > > necessarily) create identification and/or entification = > > suffering, the search to end suffering, etc! > > > Any comments, thoughts, or clarification? > > > > Michael > > I totally agree Michael. You are speaking to a finer point > regarding attention. > > Such movement of attention that you suggest may occur. > I might term it " movement of attention without purpose " . > It is attention that is *not directed*. > > Even that form of attention can dissolve such that there > is no apparent movement of attention at all, which I refer > to as attention that is " fully expanded " (which is to > say boundless). > > I further consider that fully expanded attention *merges* > with awareness (which is always " fully expanded " ). > > While the no-identification form of attention is not " dual " > per se, it is only with fully expanded attention that all > sense of distinction is completely erased. > > > Bill > Attention.......unencumberted by labels.....can soar up over the orb. :-) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Steven E. Baxter " <revspirit wrote: > > So we've arrived at the conclusion that 1) expansion of attention (no-identification) and 2) selection for consideration (identification) are two functions of entification. entification was toombaru's comment. " expansion of attention " has nothing to do with entification in any case... just the opposite entification has no " functions " .... it is just an apparent artificat of attention. > > Didn't the Hindus figure that out, like before Jesus? Atman and Brahman. The self and the Self. > > So now what do you DO with this understanding of awareness vs. attention, besides make semantic jokes? > > Just curious. the right insight, at the right time, for the right person can be, shall we say, " stimulating " .... [by which is *not* meant mere entertainment] As for the Vedas, don't know if they talk about attention per se, and particularly in the sense discussed here. Would be *very* interested to know if they do speak to such. Originality of the speaking does not matter anyway. Authenticity of the speaking does. Bill > > billrishel <illusyn wrote: > Bill wrote... > > > > < Any identification is ultimately identification > > < with attention. > > > < Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > < But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > < by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > < of identification. > > > < Bill > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > I can see that identification depends upon attention. > > Also, not to quibble, it seems to me that attention does > > not have to inevitably result in identification or > > entification as toombaru pointed out (which I also agree > > with). > > > In other words, attention can be paid without > > identification or entification taking place as long as one > > is savvy to this mechanism and dynamic. But, there can be > > no identification and/or entification without attention. > > Attention = drawing imaginary boundaries around an aspect > > of what's in the field of perception which can then be > > taken as *real* or " independently existing " thereby > > resulting in the " thing-ing " of oneself, others, ants, > > hippopotami, volcanoes, cream pies, God, Devil, Heysoose, > > etc ad infinitum. > > > All identification and/or entification depends on > > attention; but attention does not always (or even > > necessarily) create identification and/or entification = > > suffering, the search to end suffering, etc! > > > Any comments, thoughts, or clarification? > > > > Michael > > I totally agree Michael. You are speaking to a finer point > regarding attention. > > Such movement of attention that you suggest may occur. > I might term it " movement of attention without purpose " . > It is attention that is *not directed*. > > Even that form of attention can dissolve such that there > is no apparent movement of attention at all, which I refer > to as attention that is " fully expanded " (which is to > say boundless). > > I further consider that fully expanded attention *merges* > with awareness (which is always " fully expanded " ). > > While the no-identification form of attention is not " dual " > per se, it is only with fully expanded attention that all > sense of distinction is completely erased. > > Bill " Murder is the ultimate response of a human nature that denies reality in favor of its own illusions. (Especially self-murder.) " > > --from the new book Revolutionary Spirituality: Awakening to Your True Self by Steven E. Baxter > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Bill wrote... > > > > > > < Any identification is ultimately identification > > > < with attention. > > > > > < Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > > < But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > > < by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > > < of identification. > > > > > < Bill > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > I can see that identification depends upon attention. > > > Also, not to quibble, it seems to me that attention does > > > not have to inevitably result in identification or > > > entification as toombaru pointed out (which I also agree > > > with). > > > > > In other words, attention can be paid without > > > identification or entification taking place as long as one > > > is savvy to this mechanism and dynamic. But, there can be > > > no identification and/or entification without attention. > > > Attention = drawing imaginary boundaries around an aspect > > > of what's in the field of perception which can then be > > > taken as *real* or " independently existing " thereby > > > resulting in the " thing-ing " of oneself, others, ants, > > > hippopotami, volcanoes, cream pies, God, Devil, Heysoose, > > > etc ad infinitum. > > > > > All identification and/or entification depends on > > > attention; but attention does not always (or even > > > necessarily) create identification and/or entification = > > > suffering, the search to end suffering, etc! > > > > > Any comments, thoughts, or clarification? > > > > > > Michael > > > > I totally agree Michael. You are speaking to a finer point > > regarding attention. > > > > Such movement of attention that you suggest may occur. > > I might term it " movement of attention without purpose " . > > It is attention that is *not directed*. > > > > Even that form of attention can dissolve such that there > > is no apparent movement of attention at all, which I refer > > to as attention that is " fully expanded " (which is to > > say boundless). > > > > I further consider that fully expanded attention *merges* > > with awareness (which is always " fully expanded " ). > > > > While the no-identification form of attention is not " dual " > > per se, it is only with fully expanded attention that all > > sense of distinction is completely erased. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Attention.......unencumberted by labels.....can soar up over the orb. > > > > > > :-) > > > > toombaru > you and your orb ) are speaking of going out of orb-it? Bill sometimes, and this is one... you really crack me up t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Any identification is ultimately identification > with attention. > > Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > of identification. > > > Bill > We are told that consciousness and sensory experience--a stone--are one.This is a problem, a stumbling block. A true koan.I don't pretend to be the one to solve it butI was thinking about it this morning and an analogy occurred to me:suppose consciousness is a word and matter is a word.Let's say these two words have a special relationship to each other--they rhyme. And let's say further that this rhyming quality, which is a feeling or form of consciousness, is what constitutes the unity of the two, their oneness.Now, in order for this oneness to be seen ,to be realized, you have to know what each of those words sounds like.Just reading them won't help you out here.They are so formally different that you can't recognize a rhyme just by the rules of orthography and pronunciation. YOu have to EXPERIENCE each of them as they ARE--not as they are symbolized in writing. I am getting a little short-winded at this point but I think the idea--such as it is-- has been brought out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 where is the problem with you in seeing that there is only one consciousness?!? > We are told that consciousness and sensory experience--a stone--are > one.This is a problem, a stumbling block. A true koan.I don't > pretend to be the one to solve it butI was thinking about it this > morning and an analogy occurred to me:suppose consciousness is a > word and matter is a word.Let's say these two words have a special > relationship to each other--they rhyme. And let's say further that > this rhyming quality, which is a feeling or form of consciousness, > is what constitutes the unity of the two, their oneness.Now, in > order for this oneness to be seen ,to be realized, you have to know > what each of those words sounds like.Just reading them won't help > you out here.They are so formally different that you can't recognize > a rhyme just by the rules of orthography and pronunciation. YOu have > to EXPERIENCE each of them as they ARE--not as they are symbolized > in writing. I am getting a little short-winded at this point but I > think the idea--such as it is-- has been brought out. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > where is the problem with you in seeing that there is only one > consciousness?!? > > > Conceptual mind exists within a world of separate named " things " . It then imagines all the " things " smushed together....... and names that thing " Oneness " . toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > where is the problem with you in seeing that there is only one > > consciousness?!? > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual mind exists within a world of separate named " things " . > > It then imagines all the " things " smushed together....... and names > that thing " Oneness " . > > toombaru > ((((((Toombaruannandallnisargadattaposters)))))) I honor the place in you in which the entire Universe dwells, I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light and of Peace, When you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, we are One. If I do nothing else in my life, I am here to teach the world that one word. Namaste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Hi Bill, I appreciate your feedback. (See below for reference.) You stated "...that fully expanded attention *merges* with awareness (which is always "fully expanded")." I follow you and to paraphrase that some, could it be stated that when attention "fully relaxes" (de-contracts) then what becomes tacitly obvious is "awareness only" which is Beingness/Presence/Is'ness (not that it wasn't only anyway)? So, to paraphrase some, when attention "merges" it simply dissolves like the morning mist upon being shined on by the sun. Or an ice cubes "merges" with (relaxes into) the water when it melts (loses "form"). Sort of like a "fist" (verb/contraction) "dissolves/relaxes/merges" back into a "hand" (openness) once the "contractioning" ceases (not that the "fist" was never not a "hand" to begin with). I guess one could say that "perpetually feeling is as one has to pay attention" (as in "demanding it of oneself" for one reason or another, or it simply becomes a habit, etc) is kind of like suffering from "priapism". Too much of a good thing. Very painful and excruciating after awhile! Definitely a "prison" of sorts! Perhaps I'm going a bit too much into this, but it's fun and challenging to do so. And who knows, maybe a bit of clarification will pop up, which in my view, is always a good thing! :-) All my best, Michael **************************** Bill wrote, I totally agree Michael. You are speaking to a finer pointregarding attention.Such movement of attention that you suggest may occur.I might term it "movement of attention without purpose".It is attention that is *not directed*. Even that form of attention can dissolve such that thereis no apparent movement of attention at all, which I referto as attention that is "fully expanded" (which is tosay boundless).I further consider that fully expanded attention *merges*with awareness (which is always "fully expanded"). While the no-identification form of attention is not "dual"per se, it is only with fully expanded attention that allsense of distinction is completely erased.Bill > Bill wrote...> > < Any identification is ultimately identification> < with attention.> < Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X.> < But X is X only as per its selection for consideration> < by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis> < of identification.> < Bill> > Hi Bill,> > I can see that identification depends upon attention. > Also, not to quibble, it seems to me that attention does > not have to inevitably result in identification or > entification as toombaru pointed out (which I also agree > with).> In other words, attention can be paid without > identification or entification taking place as long as one > is savvy to this mechanism and dynamic. But, there can be > no identification and/or entification without attention. > Attention = drawing imaginary boundaries around an aspect > of what's in the field of perception which can then be > taken as *real* or "independently existing" thereby > resulting in the "thing-ing" of oneself, others, ants, > hippopotami, volcanoes, cream pies, God, Devil, Heysoose, > etc ad infinitum. > All identification and/or entification depends on > attention; but attention does not always (or even > necessarily) create identification and/or entification = > suffering, the search to end suffering, etc!> Any comments, thoughts, or clarification?> > Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Any identification is ultimately identification > > with attention. > > > > Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > of identification. > > > > > > Bill > > > We are told that consciousness and sensory experience--a stone--are > one.This is a problem, a stumbling block. A true koan.I don't > pretend to be the one to solve it butI was thinking about it this > morning and an analogy occurred to me:suppose consciousness is a > word and matter is a word.Let's say these two words have a special > relationship to each other--they rhyme. And let's say further that > this rhyming quality, which is a feeling or form of consciousness, > is what constitutes the unity of the two, their oneness.Now, in > order for this oneness to be seen ,to be realized, you have to know > what each of those words sounds like.Just reading them won't help > you out here.They are so formally different that you can't recognize > a rhyme just by the rules of orthography and pronunciation. YOu have > to EXPERIENCE each of them as they ARE--not as they are symbolized > in writing. I am getting a little short-winded at this point but I > think the idea--such as it is-- has been brought out. this is a marvelous idea. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Any identification is ultimately identification > > > with attention. > > > > > > Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > > But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > > by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > > of identification. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > We are told that consciousness and sensory experience--a stone-- are > > one.This is a problem, a stumbling block. A true koan.I don't > > pretend to be the one to solve it butI was thinking about it this > > morning and an analogy occurred to me:suppose consciousness is a > > word and matter is a word.Let's say these two words have a special > > relationship to each other--they rhyme. And let's say further that > > this rhyming quality, which is a feeling or form of consciousness, > > is what constitutes the unity of the two, their oneness.Now, in > > order for this oneness to be seen ,to be realized, you have to know > > what each of those words sounds like.Just reading them won't help > > you out here.They are so formally different that you can't recognize > > a rhyme just by the rules of orthography and pronunciation. YOu have > > to EXPERIENCE each of them as they ARE--not as they are symbolized > > in writing. I am getting a little short-winded at this point but I > > think the idea--such as it is-- has been brought out. this is a marvelous idea. > > .b b.b. > No es nada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > where is the problem with you in seeing that there is only one > > > consciousness?!? > > > > > > I used to think I was in the world for music I used to think I was in the world for art I used to think I was in the world for the love of God Now I'd settle for some hot milk and a pop tart. > > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual mind exists within a world of separate named " things " . > > > > It then imagines all the " things " smushed together....... and names > > that thing " Oneness " . > > > > toombaru > > > > > ((((((Toombaruannandallnisargadattaposters)))))) > > > > I honor the place in you > in which the entire Universe dwells, > > I honor the place in you > which is of Love, of Truth, of Light and of Peace, > > When you are in that place in you, > and I am in that place in me, > we are One. > > > If I do nothing else in my life, I am here to teach > the world that one word. > > Namaste. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 Hi Michael, Your analogies of the ice cube melting etc. do capture the feeling of it, a resolution via release... though it seems worth pointing out that water plus melted cube is more than just water before cube ever was. When I say that fully expanded attention *merges with* awareness... that to me is about how awareness becomes conscious- awareness. As if consciosness is " a little something " that gets added to the primal all-that-is of awareness... Also, perhaps along these lines, but at any rate something I thought you might find interesting, this quote from David Bohm: [note reference to " undirected attention " ] ...as Krishnamurti points out, psychological time, or " becoming, " is the very source of the destructive current that is putting the future of humanity at risk. To question time in this way, however, is to question the adequacy of knowledge and thought, as a means of dealing with this problem. But if knowledge and thought are not adequate, what is it that is actually required? This led in turn to the question of whether mind is limited by the brain of mankind, with all the knowledge that it has accumulated over the ages. This knowledge, which now conditions us deeply, has produced what is, in effect, an irrational and self-destructive programme in which the brain seems to be helplessly caught up. If mind is limited by such a state of the brain, then the future of humanity must be very grim indeed. Krishnamurti does not, however, regard these limitations as inevitable. Rather, he emphasizes that mind is essentially free of the distorting bias that is inherent in the conditioning of the brain, and that, through insight arising in proper undirected attention without a centre, it can change the cells of the brain and remove the destructive conditioning. If this is so, then it is crucially important that there be this kind of attention, and that we give to this question the same intensity of energy that we generally give to other activities of life that are really of vital interest to us. Bill Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > Hi Bill, > > I appreciate your feedback. (See below for reference.) You stated " ...that fully expanded attention *merges* with awareness (which is always " fully expanded " ). " I follow you and to paraphrase that some, could it be stated that when attention " fully relaxes " (de-contracts) then what becomes tacitly obvious is " awareness only " which is Beingness/Presence/Is'ness (not that it wasn't only anyway)? > > So, to paraphrase some, when attention " merges " it simply dissolves like the morning mist upon being shined on by the sun. Or an ice cubes " merges " with (relaxes into) the water when it melts (loses " form " ). Sort of like a " fist " (verb/contraction) " dissolves/relaxes/merges " back into a " hand " (openness) once the " contractioning " ceases (not that the " fist " was never not a " hand " to begin with). I guess one could say that " perpetually feeling is as one has to pay attention " (as in " demanding it of oneself " for one reason or another, or it simply becomes a habit, etc) is kind of like suffering from " priapism " . Too much of a good thing. Very painful and excruciating after awhile! Definitely a " prison " of sorts! > > Perhaps I'm going a bit too much into this, but it's fun and challenging to do so. And who knows, maybe a bit of clarification will pop up, which in my view, is always a good thing! :-) > > All my best, > Michael > > > **************************** > Bill wrote, > > I totally agree Michael. You are speaking to a finer point > regarding attention. > > Such movement of attention that you suggest may occur. > I might term it " movement of attention without purpose " . > It is attention that is *not directed*. > > Even that form of attention can dissolve such that there > is no apparent movement of attention at all, which I refer > to as attention that is " fully expanded " (which is to > say boundless). > > I further consider that fully expanded attention *merges* > with awareness (which is always " fully expanded " ). > > While the no-identification form of attention is not " dual " > per se, it is only with fully expanded attention that all > sense of distinction is completely erased. > > Bill > > > Bill wrote... > > > > < Any identification is ultimately identification > > < with attention. > > > < Identification may appear to be with some (phenomenal) X. > > < But X is X only as per its selection for consideration > > < by attention. At root it is attention that is the basis > > < of identification. > > > < Bill > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > I can see that identification depends upon attention. > > Also, not to quibble, it seems to me that attention does > > not have to inevitably result in identification or > > entification as toombaru pointed out (which I also agree > > with). > > > In other words, attention can be paid without > > identification or entification taking place as long as one > > is savvy to this mechanism and dynamic. But, there can be > > no identification and/or entification without attention. > > Attention = drawing imaginary boundaries around an aspect > > of what's in the field of perception which can then be > > taken as *real* or " independently existing " thereby > > resulting in the " thing-ing " of oneself, others, ants, > > hippopotami, volcanoes, cream pies, God, Devil, Heysoose, > > etc ad infinitum. > > > All identification and/or entification depends on > > attention; but attention does not always (or even > > necessarily) create identification and/or entification = > > suffering, the search to end suffering, etc! > > > Any comments, thoughts, or clarification? > > > > Michael > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > where is the problem with you in seeing that there is only one > > consciousness?!? > > > > > > > > > > Conceptual mind exists within a world of separate named " things " . > > It then imagines all the " things " smushed together....... and names > that thing " Oneness " . > > toombaru > yes, so what? 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.