attention and identification

July 6, 2007

Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote:

>

> 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.

but it seems music, art and love of God are melted in your food

July 6, 2007

Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote:

>

> 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?

>

Mind sprays words on its own questions about words and believes that

it has its finger on reality.

toombaru

July 6, 2007

Bill wrote,

< 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"]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your pointers! I love that phrase "awareness becomes conscious-awareness". It strikes home completely in my experience. There's a kind of "waking up" to "already being awake"...if I can put it that way. Attention (focusing/tensing, which is an "verb/action" not a "noun/thing") "relaxes back into" the *primal condition* (for lack of a better word) and *knowingly notices* it as its source condition. And, that this "primal condition" (choiceless awareness) is always already ever present and never not present. At times this "knowingness" is in the foreground (so to speak) or in the background. Nevertheless, it is never absent.

And when it is in the foreground *knowingly*, this makes all the difference in the world and ones relationships simply because it *IS* the very difference itself that one would otherwise be seeking through all kinds of strategic (and always futile) attempts such as using will power, positive thinking, visualization, repression, drugs, hypnosis, meditation, starvation, worship, prayer, ad infinitum.

Any thoughts or clarification? Hopefully I'm not making you work "too hard"? :-))

All my best,

Michael

July 6, 2007

Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

> Bill wrote,

>

> < 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 " ]

>

> Hi Bill,

>

> Thanks for your pointers! I love that phrase " awareness becomes

conscious-awareness " . It strikes home completely in my experience.

There's a kind of " waking up " to " already being awake " ...if I can put

it that way. Attention (focusing/tensing, which is an " verb/action "

not a " noun/thing " ) " relaxes back into " the *primal condition* (for

lack of a better word) and *knowingly notices* it as its source

condition. And, that this " primal condition " (choiceless awareness) is

always already ever present and never not present. At times this

" knowingness " is in the foreground (so to speak) or in the background.

Nevertheless, it is never absent.

>

> And when it is in the foreground *knowingly*, this makes all

the difference in the world and ones relationships simply because it

*IS* the very difference itself that one would otherwise be seeking

through all kinds of strategic (and always futile) attempts such as

using will power, positive thinking, visualization, repression, drugs,

hypnosis, meditation, starvation, worship, prayer, ad infinitum.

I *love* what you say there about " *IS* the very difference " .

A deep statement calling for a deep grok.

And your comment about foreground/background yet never absent is

a good point.

I like it all!

Somehow even when in the background it is still implicit ~

not sure if that is what your " knowingly " is hinting at ~

and so even when not in the fore of consciousness it is

" immanent " ... a permeating kind of " knowingness " .

The effect of such permeating knowingness is a kind of

confidence, a *coursing deeply* in knowingness.

Well, rereading I see you have already said effectively

the same, when you write: " ...this 'primal condition' (choiceless

awareness) is always already ever present and never not present. "

And that is really good too, as it indicates that the root

of the established " knowingness " is choiceless awareness,

but not just a " sitting here this moment " kind of choiceless

awareness... but a choiceless awareness that is burned so

deep, via such a thorough dying-into... that choiceless

awareness has become choiceless (!). And hence the *coursing

deeply* in knowingness. One could as well call it coursing

deeply in profound openness.

Which is Truth.

> Any thoughts or clarification? Hopefully I'm not making you

work " too hard " ? :-))

I always enjoy your posts Michael. And they are always

helpful to me because they say things that I am trying

to see in refreshing, different ways. As I expect you

realize quite well, my concern is not about what-is-the-case,

but how to *speak about* this Wonder so defiant of words.

And it is all too evident ~ I'm afraid ~ that I need all

the help I can get )

So while I wish you would make me work a little more, I'll

not complain, as I am grateful for whatever comments you

choose to make

Bill

>

> All my best,

> Michael

>

> Michael

>

July 6, 2007

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote:

> >

> > 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?

> >

>

> Mind sprays words on its own questions about words and believes that

> it has its finger on reality.

>

> toombaru

>

The answer to all questions: Never-mind!

Bill

July 6, 2007

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the feedback. It adds fuel to my inquiry. Back in the mid-'80s, I remember Stewart Emery, who founded "Actualizations" along with Carol Augustus, tell a brief story one day at a men's week long workshop. He said that a number of times daily he recalls a scene in Mel Brook's movie, "Blazing Saddles" where Mel (who was as a preacher in the movie standing on a scaffold where a man was about to be hanged, raised his fist and face toward the heavens and shouted, "Dear God. Am I doing the right thing or merely jerking off!", or words to that effect! :-) He (Stewart) said that it helped him to keep himself in check, in a manner of speaking, to keep realizing that he really didn't know anything. For whatever reason (or no reason at all), reminds me of the saying, "No matter how deep you dig, you're still only at the surface!"

So, it's fun to dig into trying to find a way of conveying this kind of stuff. I guess I get a kind of a perverse kick out of it since I realize that it's an impossibility to ever do it perfectly. Perhaps it's akin to an artist in search of creating a "perfect piece of art, or music, or dance, etc." Maybe I'm a "masochist/sadist combo" of sort. The sadist function tortures the functional aspect that enjoys being tortured which gives impetus to the sadist function to continue! Driver and driven operating in concert reinforcing one another! Holy Merry-Go-Round, Batman! :-))

Nothing "new" below!

Michael

**********************************

Bill wrote,< 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 consciousness 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"]Hi Bill,Thanks for your pointers! I love that phrase "awareness becomes conscious-awareness". It strikes home completely in my experience. There's a kind of "waking up" to "already being awake"...if I can put it that way. Attention (focusing/tensing, which is an "verb/action" not a "noun/thing") "relaxes back into" the *primal condition* (for lack of a better word) and *knowingly notices* it as its source condition. And, that this "primal condition" (choiceless awareness) is always already ever present and never not present. At times this "knowingness" is in the foreground (so to speak) or in the background. Nevertheless, it is never absent. And when it is in the foreground *knowingly*, this makes all the difference in the world and ones relationships simply because it *IS* the very difference itself that one would otherwise be seeking through all kinds of strategic (and always futile) attempts such as using will power, positive thinking, visualization, repression, drugs, hypnosis, meditation, starvation, worship, prayer, ad infinitum.Any thoughts or clarification? Hopefully I'm not making you work "too hard"? :-))All my best,MichaelMichael

Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (34)

2.5.

attention and identification

Posted by: "billrishel" illusyn billrishel

Fri Jul 6, 2007 10:45 am (PST)

Nisargadatta , "Adamson" <adamson wrote:>> > > Bill wrote,> > < 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"]> > > Hi Bill,> > Thanks for your pointers! I love that phrase "awareness becomesconscious-awareness". It strikes home completely in my experience.There's a kind of "waking up" to "already being awake"...if I can putit that way. Attention (focusing/tensing, which is an "verb/action"not a "noun/thing") "relaxes back into" the *primal condition* (forlack of a better word) and *knowingly notices* it as its sourcecondition. And, that this "primal condition" (choiceless awareness) isalways already ever present and never not present. At times this"knowingness" is in the foreground (so to speak) or in the background.Nevertheless, it is never absent. > > And when it is in the foreground *knowingly*, this makes allthe difference in the world and ones relationships simply because it*IS* the very difference itself that one would otherwise be seekingthrough all kinds of strategic (and always futile) attempts such asusing will power, positive thinking, visualization, repression, drugs,hypnosis, meditation, starvation, worship, prayer, ad infinitum.I *love* what you say there about "*IS* the very difference".A deep statement calling for a deep grok.And your comment about foreground/background yet never absent isa good point. I like it all!Somehow even when in the background it is still implicit ~not sure if that is what your "knowingly" is hinting at ~and so even when not in the fore of consciousness it is"immanent"... a permeating kind of "knowingness".The effect of such permeating knowingness is a kind ofconfidence, a *coursing deeply* in knowingness. Well, rereading I see you have already said effectivelythe same, when you write: "...this 'primal condition' (choicelessawareness) is always already ever present and never not present."And that is really good too, as it indicates that the rootof the established "knowingness" is choiceless awareness,but not just a "sitting here this moment" kind of choicelessawareness... but a choiceless awareness that is burned sodeep, via such a thorough dying-into... that choiceless awareness has become choiceless (!). And hence the *coursingdeeply* in knowingness. One could as well call it coursingdeeply in profound openness.Which is Truth.> Any thoughts or clarification? Hopefully I'm not making youwork "too hard"? :-))I always enjoy your posts Michael. And they are alwayshelpful to me because they say things that I am tryingto see in refreshing, different ways. As I expect you realize quite well, my concern is not about what-is-the-case,but how to *speak about* this Wonder so defiant of words.And it is all too evident ~ I'm afraid ~ that I need allthe help I can get )So while I wish you would make me work a little more, I'llnot complain, as I am grateful for whatever comments you choose to make :)Bill

July 6, 2007

Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

> Hi Bill,

>

> Thanks for the feedback. It adds fuel to my inquiry. Back in

the mid-'80s, I remember Stewart Emery, who founded " Actualizations "

along with Carol Augustus, tell a brief story one day at a men's week

long workshop. He said that a number of times daily he recalls a scene

in Mel Brook's movie, " Blazing Saddles " where Mel (who was as a

preacher in the movie standing on a scaffold where a man was about to

be hanged, raised his fist and face toward the heavens and shouted,

" Dear God. Am I doing the right thing or merely jerking off! " , or

words to that effect! :-) He (Stewart) said that it helped him to

keep himself in check, in a manner of speaking, to keep realizing that

he really didn't know anything. For whatever reason (or no reason at

all), reminds me of the saying, " No matter how deep you dig, you're

still only at the surface! "

>

> So, it's fun to dig into trying to find a way of conveying this

kind of stuff. I guess I get a kind of a perverse kick out of it since

I realize that it's an impossibility to ever do it perfectly. Perhaps

it's akin to an artist in search of creating a " perfect piece of art,

or music, or dance, etc. " Maybe I'm a " masochist/sadist combo " of

sort. The sadist function tortures the functional aspect that enjoys

being tortured which gives impetus to the sadist function to continue!

Driver and driven operating in concert reinforcing one another!

Holy Merry-Go-Round, Batman! :-))

>

> Nothing " new " below!

>

> Michael

>

> **********************************

>

One wonders if " It " is difficult to speak about is because It is not

an it.

toombaru

July 6, 2007

> Hi Bill,

>

> Thanks for the feedback. It adds fuel to my inquiry.

> Back in the mid-'80s, I remember Stewart Emery, who

> founded " Actualizations " along with Carol Augustus,

> tell a brief story one day at a men's week long

> workshop. He said that a number of times daily he

> recalls a scene in Mel Brook's movie, " Blazing Saddles "

> where Mel (who was as a preacher in the movie standing

> on a scaffold where a man was about to be hanged,

> raised his fist and face toward the heavens and

> shouted, " Dear God. Am I doing the right thing or

> merely jerking off! " , or words to that effect! :-) He

> (Stewart) said that it helped him to keep himself in

> check, in a manner of speaking, to keep realizing that

> he really didn't know anything. For whatever reason (or

> no reason at all), reminds me of the saying, " No matter

> how deep you dig, you're still only at the surface! "

or... nice that you are digging so fast! Great work!

But uh... errr... what *direction* are you going?

Up, down, sideways, in a circle?

and then the cold realiation there is no way of knowing!

so then maybe not digging so fast.

this spade of dirt is THE Spade of Dirt.

(in fact if you look close you can see Jesus' face in it!)

>

> So, it's fun to dig into trying to find a way of

> conveying this kind of stuff. I guess I get a kind of a

> perverse kick out of it since I realize that it's an

> impossibility to ever do it perfectly.

Impossible to ever do it perfectly?

My Lord! I see it as trying to do the impossible,

trying to say what cannot be said.

But then I remember that iz Love doin' it all

so no matter what I may think about it,

I'm juz the guy wid de shovel.

> Perhaps it's

> akin to an artist in search of creating a " perfect

> piece of art, or music, or dance, etc. "

Maybe sometimes it's the Perfect Piece of Art looking

for an artist that's available...

But if that artist is off doin' his idea of art,

then maybe he won't be.

The only thing more powerful than humility is

more humility.

Bill

> Maybe I'm a

> " masochist/sadist combo " of sort. The sadist function

> tortures the functional aspect that enjoys being

> tortured which gives impetus to the sadist function to

> continue! Driver and driven operating in concert

> reinforcing one another! Holy Merry-Go-Round, Batman!

> :-))

>

> Michael

July 6, 2007

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Bill,

> >

> > Thanks for the feedback. It adds fuel to my inquiry. Back in

> the mid-'80s, I remember Stewart Emery, who founded " Actualizations "

> along with Carol Augustus, tell a brief story one day at a men's week

> long workshop. He said that a number of times daily he recalls a scene

> in Mel Brook's movie, " Blazing Saddles " where Mel (who was as a

> preacher in the movie standing on a scaffold where a man was about to

> be hanged, raised his fist and face toward the heavens and shouted,

> " Dear God. Am I doing the right thing or merely jerking off! " , or

> words to that effect! :-) He (Stewart) said that it helped him to

> keep himself in check, in a manner of speaking, to keep realizing that

> he really didn't know anything. For whatever reason (or no reason at

> all), reminds me of the saying, " No matter how deep you dig, you're

> still only at the surface! "

> >

> > So, it's fun to dig into trying to find a way of conveying this

> kind of stuff. I guess I get a kind of a perverse kick out of it since

> I realize that it's an impossibility to ever do it perfectly. Perhaps

> it's akin to an artist in search of creating a " perfect piece of art,

> or music, or dance, etc. " Maybe I'm a " masochist/sadist combo " of

> sort. The sadist function tortures the functional aspect that enjoys

> being tortured which gives impetus to the sadist function to continue!

> Driver and driven operating in concert reinforcing one another!

> Holy Merry-Go-Round, Batman! :-))

> >

> > Nothing " new " below!

> >

> > Michael

> >

> > **********************************

> >

One wonders if " It " is difficult to speak about is because It is not

> an it.

>

> toombaru

>

certainly getting past the non-it of " It " is a prerequisite.

but really, is not difficult at all... if the speaking is

the natural outflow of Love. That means the mind has the

humility to let Love show the way. And if " the mind has the

humility " sounds like an oxymoron... then maybe THAT'S the rub!

Bill

July 7, 2007