Addiction/Moller

[Guest guest]

> J M de la Rouviere <moller

> ~~(M)

> ...Here the 'sense' of touch changes into

> a mere sense of non-material, energy-kind - of feeling. If you REALLY

try

> to sense your two fingers touching, you will find that when thought is

quiet

> so that it does not project the image of two fingers touching, then the

> actual experience is not that of any two things touching. There is just

> this strange sense of energy present which does not confirm the dualistic

> subject object reality of ordinary experience. What appears, appears by

> itself as a unitary process.

>

> Identification is the problem. Not the body as such. And identification

is

> a function of thought and attention.

>

> Love,

> Moller

 

Thanks Moller.

 

You say regarding the body: "there is just this strange sense of energy

present which does not confirm the dualistic subject object reality of

ordinary experience."

 

For me it seems as though, when such events occur, there is still a

subject/object in that "I" observe the body and it is an energetic or

thought phenomena. Duality is present because there is an observer and an

observed(the energetic body), and they are distinct and separate. Most

notably there is (or can be) separation, distinct separation such that I am

not the energetic body phenomena, I am completely separate from it, there is

no identification, although the body is there if sense is directed toward

it.

 

My experience is still a duality: observer & observed. I've read various

descriptions of non-dual states, I read that separation rises to

non-duality. But not yet in my perception.

 

Love,

Roger

[Guest guest]

Dear Roger,

 

re:addiction etc.

 

You said:

>For me it seems as though, when such events occur, there is still a

>subject/object in that "I" observe the body and it is an energetic or

>thought phenomena. Duality is present because there is an observer and an

>observed(the energetic body), and they are distinct and separate.

 

~~(M) Thank you for pointing that out. You are absolutely right. Perhaps

we can proceed from here. The thing is getting a little tricky.

 

Allow me some detail on this one as it is most important. So lets go

slowly. I hope this is your interest.

 

There are the fingers touching. Now in our 'ordinary' state we see the

fingers touching and feel the touch. Here is ordinary subject/object in

operation. Next we close our eyes and we are left with the sense of touch

only. Yet, it is very difficult just to feel the touching activity, without

projecting a mental picture of the two fingers touching. So if we want to

just feel the sense of touch, (still as subject/object) but without the

mental projection, we have to pay extra-ordinary gentle but clear attention

to just the sense of touch. If we can become so sharp in our sense

perception that we can just sense the touching sensation, then we may

perhaps introduce the term 'direct perception'. as there is no longer the

interference/projection of something(s) (in this case the the thoughts of

the fingers ) onto the simple sense of touch. At this level only attention

and its object remain. Here we are still in the dualistic mode as there is

still a sense of separation between the 'observer and the observed'. At

this point, though, thought is very quiet and attention very stable. One

may call this a kind of Samatha or quiet state, where attention and its

object are the only activities present. But Samatha is still within duality

and observer/observed.

 

The above is the 'normal' way in which Samatha takes place. Samatha can

never be whole, even if the mind as thought and attention is very stable and

quiet.

 

However, to proceed from here is possible and that is why Samatha has been

considered a 'door' to non-duality. So we have the sense of touch and

attention to it , held in a kind of coherency by a subtle act of will.

 

May I suggest that at this point the meditation can go in two directions

 

1) An intensification of this state of controlled attention can and will

most probably lead to a kind of Samadhic sense of bliss and so on. It could

be taken further to complete cut-off-ness from the sense world and general

experience. It could be taken further, which is not my experience.

 

2) Attention could be relaxed totally in relation to its object (the sense

of touch) leaving the sense of touch existing by itself, without any

support. But if we can find our way into this rather subtle situation, we

may find that something else presents itself and this is that while

attention was in place, holding itself stable on its object, a subtle

thought projection crept into the action, and made the assumption that

because one can pay attention to this object, 'one' is separate from it.

And it is this projection/assumption/deduction, which gives one the sense of

duality while attention is operating. It interprates the ability to pay

attention (which in itself is not an act of duality) as confirmation of its

true separateness from the object. And to my insight it is this very

sub-conscious act of thought, assuming the subject in all activities of

attention (which go on all day in ordinary experience) which creates the

ongoing sense of a separate self.

 

So to go back to your sense that while paying attention to just the sense

(energy or otherwise) of touch there appears to be an inherent separation

between the observer and the observed, is based on this thought projection I

described above. The act act of paying attention does not create the

separation, but the thought projection which says that 'because attention

can be paid to an aspect of present arising, 'I' must be separate from it.

And as we are totally identified with our thinking this side of non-duality,

this thought assumes the final reality of our being which is presented as

the separate observer.

 

If this line of describing a process of enquiring into the shift from

apparent separation to that of wholeness of being, is of interest to you, I

will continue further along this road in a next posting.

 

Please let me know. And please give the above your kind, and generous

attention.

 

In love,

 

Moller

[Guest guest]

 

J M de la Rouviere [moller]

Friday, March 10, 2000 10:11 AM

Re: Addiction/Moller

 

J M de la Rouviere <moller

 

Dear Roger,

 

re:addiction etc.

 

You said:

>For me it seems as though, when such events occur, there is still a

>subject/object in that "I" observe the body and it is an energetic or

>thought phenomena. Duality is present because there is an observer and an

>observed(the energetic body), and they are distinct and separate.

 

~~(M) Thank you for pointing that out. You are absolutely right. Perhaps

we can proceed from here. The thing is getting a little tricky.

 

Allow me some detail on this one as it is most important. So lets go

slowly. I hope this is your interest.

 

There are the fingers touching. Now in our 'ordinary' state we see the

fingers touching and feel the touch. Here is ordinary subject/object in

operation. Next we close our eyes and we are left with the sense of touch

only. Yet, it is very difficult just to feel the touching activity, without

projecting a mental picture of the two fingers touching. So if we want to

just feel the sense of touch, (still as subject/object) but without the

mental projection, we have to pay extra-ordinary gentle but clear attention

to just the sense of touch. If we can become so sharp in our sense

perception that we can just sense the touching sensation, then we may

perhaps introduce the term 'direct perception'. as there is no longer the

interference/projection of something(s) (in this case the the thoughts of

the fingers ) onto the simple sense of touch. At this level only attention

and its object remain. Here we are still in the dualistic mode as there is

still a sense of separation between the 'observer and the observed'. At

this point, though, thought is very quiet and attention very stable. One

may call this a kind of Samatha or quiet state, where attention and its

object are the only activities present. But Samatha is still within duality

and observer/observed.

 

The above is the 'normal' way in which Samatha takes place. Samatha can

never be whole, even if the mind as thought and attention is very stable and

quiet.

 

However, to proceed from here is possible and that is why Samatha has been

considered a 'door' to non-duality. So we have the sense of touch and

attention to it , held in a kind of coherency by a subtle act of will.

 

May I suggest that at this point the meditation can go in two directions

 

1) An intensification of this state of controlled attention can and will

most probably lead to a kind of Samadhic sense of bliss and so on. It could

be taken further to complete cut-off-ness from the sense world and general

experience. It could be taken further, which is not my experience.

 

2) Attention could be relaxed totally in relation to its object (the sense

of touch) leaving the sense of touch existing by itself, without any

support. But if we can find our way into this rather subtle situation, we

may find that something else presents itself and this is that while

attention was in place, holding itself stable on its object, a subtle

thought projection crept into the action, and made the assumption that

because one can pay attention to this object, 'one' is separate from it.

And it is this projection/assumption/deduction, which gives one the sense of

duality while attention is operating. It interprates the ability to pay

attention (which in itself is not an act of duality) as confirmation of its

true separateness from the object. And to my insight it is this very

sub-conscious act of thought, assuming the subject in all activities of

attention (which go on all day in ordinary experience) which creates the

ongoing sense of a separate self.

 

So to go back to your sense that while paying attention to just the sense

(energy or otherwise) of touch there appears to be an inherent separation

between the observer and the observed, is based on this thought projection I

described above. The act act of paying attention does not create the

separation, but the thought projection which says that 'because attention

can be paid to an aspect of present arising, 'I' must be separate from it.

And as we are totally identified with our thinking this side of non-duality,

this thought assumes the final reality of our being which is presented as

the separate observer.

 

If this line of describing a process of enquiring into the shift from

apparent separation to that of wholeness of being, is of interest to you, I

will continue further along this road in a next posting.

 

Please let me know. And please give the above your kind, and generous

attention.

 

In love,

 

Moller

 

 

Hello Moller-Ji. You wished for me to comment on this. A very fine

description indeed of the subtleties of using attention as a tool to

understand the nondual condition. Using the sensation of touch as a point of

understanding appears useful. In the yogic relaxation and mediation of the

Shavaasana (The Corpse posture), attention is brought to each part of the

body and there is a gradual letting go of sensations to subsist by

themselves. Ultimately only attention is left feeling the "sensation" of

attention. Attention falling upon itself, attending to itself, focusing on

itself, is a subtle form of mediation as well that many people are attracted

to. Different methods for different people. All methods use awareness or

attention as a tool to focus on some object. Hence the separation between

subject and object. When attention itself becomes the tool, the method, the

object, then, Attention as the True Subject without an object might be

Recognized.

 

Love and hugs to you brother Moller

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

 

Thank you for your very kind response to my request for putting the intitial

part of my practice into traditional perspective. Kindly allow a further

discussion on this subject for my benefit.

 

You said:

>Hello Moller-Ji. You wished for me to comment on this. A very fine

>description indeed of the subtleties of using attention as a tool to

>understand the nondual condition. Using the sensation of touch as a point

of

>understanding appears useful. In the yogic relaxation and mediation of the

>Shavaasana (The Corpse posture), attention is brought to each part of the

>body and there is a gradual letting go of sensations to subsist by

>themselves. Ultimately only attention is left feeling the "sensation" of

>attention. Attention falling upon itself, attending to itself, focusing on

>itself, is a subtle form of mediation as well that many people are

attracted

>to. Different methods for different people. All methods use awareness or

>attention as a tool to focus on some object. Hence the separation between

>subject and object

>Love and hugs to you brother Moller

>Harsha

 

~~(M) The part I described was indeed about the use of attention. It was

not really about the use of "attention to understand the non-dual

condition". To my insight attention cannot find or reach out to the

non-dual condition. Practice around this method as I described, is really

just to stabilise attention and thought through 'direct perception', where

attention is unencumbered by any mental projection. However, at this point

I introduced the possibility that attention itself could be relaxed,

revealing the fact that without the paying of attention, things are still

the case and appear by themselves. A good analogy here is the difference

between seeing and looking. When the eyes are open they 'see'. When

attention is brought into play there is 'looking'.

 

You said in this regard something which I REAlLY would like to discuss with

you. And that was:

 

.. When attention itself becomes the tool, the method, the

>object, then, Attention as the True Subject without an object might be

>Recognized.

>

 

~~(M) This part I find slight difficulty with. I have tried on many

occasions to do just this, and although it has become factually clear that

attention is the focussing mechanism of 'awareness', I have never found

that attention can in fact divide ITSELF into subject and object.

Attention could behold a thought restructuring of itself as object and then

experience such a subtle projection as truly existing, but for attention to

split itself into subject and object has not been my experience. In stead,

what has been my experience is that when attention relaxes completely out of

the process, all that remains is what is, completely self-aware. Attention

could be paid to aspects of this what is- ness, but that is all it can do.

 

At the cost of boring you to death with this detail, (please bear with on

this one) I must admit 'sensing' the implosion of attention into its

source. But the moment this happens, and co-incident with this, there is

the self-aware condition of what is. Would it be totally wrong to suggest

that what is, being self-aware, has always two inherent qualities which

could be separated for the sake of talking about it, into awareness and

content, realising that they are one process of appearance? Because if this

is possible, one could say that attention is part of the awareness-aspect of

consciousness-being? The other being being?

 

If sometime you have some free time, kindly let me know your thoughts on

this ?

 

Love and sincere respect,

 

Moller

 

 

 

 

ssage-----

Harsha <harsha-hkl

< >

11 March 2000 04:46

RE: Addiction/Moller

 

>"Harsha" <harsha-hkl

>

>

>J M de la Rouviere [moller]

>Friday, March 10, 2000 10:11 AM

>

>Re: Addiction/Moller

>

>J M de la Rouviere <moller

>

>Dear Roger,

>

>re:addiction etc.

>

>You said:

>

>>For me it seems as though, when such events occur, there is still a

>>subject/object in that "I" observe the body and it is an energetic or

>>thought phenomena. Duality is present because there is an observer and an

>>observed(the energetic body), and they are distinct and separate.

>

>~~(M) Thank you for pointing that out. You are absolutely right. Perhaps

>we can proceed from here. The thing is getting a little tricky.

>

>Allow me some detail on this one as it is most important. So lets go

>slowly. I hope this is your interest.

>

>There are the fingers touching. Now in our 'ordinary' state we see the

>fingers touching and feel the touch. Here is ordinary subject/object in

>operation. Next we close our eyes and we are left with the sense of touch

>only. Yet, it is very difficult just to feel the touching activity,

without

>projecting a mental picture of the two fingers touching. So if we want to

>just feel the sense of touch, (still as subject/object) but without the

>mental projection, we have to pay extra-ordinary gentle but clear attention

>to just the sense of touch. If we can become so sharp in our sense

>perception that we can just sense the touching sensation, then we may

>perhaps introduce the term 'direct perception'. as there is no longer the

>interference/projection of something(s) (in this case the the thoughts of

>the fingers ) onto the simple sense of touch. At this level only attention

>and its object remain. Here we are still in the dualistic mode as there is

>still a sense of separation between the 'observer and the observed'. At

>this point, though, thought is very quiet and attention very stable. One

>may call this a kind of Samatha or quiet state, where attention and its

>object are the only activities present. But Samatha is still within

duality

>and observer/observed.

>

>The above is the 'normal' way in which Samatha takes place. Samatha can

>never be whole, even if the mind as thought and attention is very stable

and

>quiet.

>

>However, to proceed from here is possible and that is why Samatha has been

>considered a 'door' to non-duality. So we have the sense of touch and

>attention to it , held in a kind of coherency by a subtle act of will.

>

> May I suggest that at this point the meditation can go in two directions

>

>1) An intensification of this state of controlled attention can and will

>most probably lead to a kind of Samadhic sense of bliss and so on. It

could

>be taken further to complete cut-off-ness from the sense world and general

>experience. It could be taken further, which is not my experience.

>

>2) Attention could be relaxed totally in relation to its object (the sense

>of touch) leaving the sense of touch existing by itself, without any

>support. But if we can find our way into this rather subtle situation, we

>may find that something else presents itself and this is that while

>attention was in place, holding itself stable on its object, a subtle

>thought projection crept into the action, and made the assumption that

>because one can pay attention to this object, 'one' is separate from it.

>And it is this projection/assumption/deduction, which gives one the sense

of

>duality while attention is operating. It interprates the ability to pay

>attention (which in itself is not an act of duality) as confirmation of its

>true separateness from the object. And to my insight it is this very

>sub-conscious act of thought, assuming the subject in all activities of

>attention (which go on all day in ordinary experience) which creates the

>ongoing sense of a separate self.

>

>So to go back to your sense that while paying attention to just the sense

>(energy or otherwise) of touch there appears to be an inherent separation

>between the observer and the observed, is based on this thought projection

I

>described above. The act act of paying attention does not create the

>separation, but the thought projection which says that 'because attention

>can be paid to an aspect of present arising, 'I' must be separate from it.

>And as we are totally identified with our thinking this side of

non-duality,

>this thought assumes the final reality of our being which is presented as

>the separate observer.

>

>If this line of describing a process of enquiring into the shift from

>apparent separation to that of wholeness of being, is of interest to you, I

>will continue further along this road in a next posting.

>

>Please let me know. And please give the above your kind, and generous

>attention.

>

>In love,

>

>Moller

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>------

>PERFORM CPR ON YOUR APR!

>Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as

>0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.

>Apply NOW!

>http://click./1/2121/3/_/520931/_/952785959/

>------

>

>//

>

>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness.

Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is

where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal

Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously

arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

>

>To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

> www., and select the User Center link from

the menu bar

> on the left. This menu will also let you change your

subscription

> between digest and normal mode.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

 

J M de la Rouviere [moller]

Sunday, March 12, 2000 10:43 AM

Re: Addiction/Moller

 

 

~~(M) The part I described was indeed about the use of attention. It was

not really about the use of "attention to understand the non-dual

condition". To my insight attention cannot find or reach out to the

non-dual condition. Practice around this method as I described, is really

just to stabilise attention and thought through 'direct perception', where

attention is unencumbered by any mental projection. However, at this point

I introduced the possibility that attention itself could be relaxed,

revealing the fact that without the paying of attention, things are still

the case and appear by themselves. A good analogy here is the difference

between seeing and looking. When the eyes are open they 'see'. When

attention is brought into play there is 'looking'.

 

 

(H) Dear Moller-Ji. I would agree with that. There is attention. There is

relaxation of attention. I think Bruce one time referred to it as the

spontaneous absence of intent. Relaxation of attention without intent

happens. This may be called Grace. The higher power takes over.

 

 

(M)You said in this regard something which I REAlLY would like to discuss

with

you. And that was:

 

.. (H) When attention itself becomes the tool, the method, the

>object, then, Attention as the True Subject without an object might be

>Recognized.

>

 

~~(M) This part I find slight difficulty with. I have tried on many

occasions to do just this, and although it has become factually clear that

attention is the focussing mechanism of 'awareness', I have never found

that attention can in fact divide ITSELF into subject and object.

Attention could behold a thought restructuring of itself as object and then

experience such a subtle projection as truly existing, but for attention to

split itself into subject and object has not been my experience. In stead,

what has been my experience is that when attention relaxes completely out of

the process, all that remains is what is, completely self-aware. Attention

could be paid to aspects of this what is- ness, but that is all it can do.

 

At the cost of boring you to death with this detail, (please bear with on

this one) I must admit 'sensing' the implosion of attention into its

source. But the moment this happens, and co-incident with this, there is

the self-aware condition of what is. Would it be totally wrong to suggest

that what is, being self-aware, has always two inherent qualities which

could be separated for the sake of talking about it, into awareness and

content, realising that they are one process of appearance? Because if this

is possible, one could say that attention is part of the awareness-aspect of

consciousness-being? The other being being?

 

If sometime you have some free time, kindly let me know your thoughts on

this ?

 

Love and sincere respect,

 

Moller

 

 

(H) Yes, I agree with much of what you are saying Moller-ji. It seems that

when the attention (without intent) relaxes completely into itself, there is

the possibility of it being drawn into the Heart of Is-Ness and Recognizing

It Self as That. The other things that you speak of, I have not thought

about much. One of my limitations is that I am not intellectually inclined

and detail oriented. It takes much energy for me to dissect subtle concepts

and perhaps due to some inherent laziness, I am unable to move away from a

basic simplicity which seems to overwhelm me and keep me in the same place.

Greg has spoken eloquently on these issues before and can do a much better

job than me. Also Joyce Short's recent post should be helpful as she has

much experience in exploring various perspectives.

 

Love

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Hello Mollerji and Harshaji,

>From Harsha's request, let me offer a few thoughts on attention, though I

hadn't kept up with the context of this thread. Please forgive me if my

comments are off the wall or out of context! Moller suggests that

attention cannot reach out to understand the non-dual condition. This is

true and wise, since the non-dual is that in which attention appears. And

attention cannot comprehend that which comprehends attention. Moller's

interest in attention seems to be in the stabilization of attention, which

might lead to its relaxation. He says:

>attention is unencumbered by any mental projection. However, at this point

>I introduced the possibility that attention itself could be relaxed,

>revealing the fact that without the paying of attention, things are still

>the case and appear by themselves. A good analogy here is the difference

>between seeing and looking. When the eyes are open they 'see'. When

>attention is brought into play there is 'looking'.

 

There are several interesting points here. I'll talk a little about three

ways we can see attention -- as something to cultivate, as something to

allow to relax, and as itself an object of consciousness.

 

(i) Attention, when cultivated, leads to stabilization and perceived

absorption that Patanjali calls samyama in his Yoga Sutras III:1-4. He

explains that it comes in three steps -- dharana (concentration, or fixing

the attention on one object), dhyana (continuous flow of cognition towards

the object), and samadhi (shining of the object alone and the collapse of

the subject/object distinction. This is a basic tool in many, many

spiritual toolboxes. In non-dualist approaches, this absorption serves as

a symbol or free sample that what we are is just THIS, which is ALL, and is

always present behind and beyond subject/object dichotomy. In non-dual

approaches, this free sample given by the absorption is not intended to

result in *perpetual absorption*. Rather, it is intended to point out that

the phenomenal subject or small "I" never truly existed in the first place.

This functioning without the phenomenal "I" has actually been the case

always, everywhere, but it just wasn't seen this way. That is how the

subject/object dichotomy comes to an end once and for all - it just never was.

 

(ii) Attention, when allowed to relax, has a way of spreading out evenly to

cover the entire field of experience. No particular phenomenon has any

extra "weight" or "juice" or "charge." Yes, some phenomena may be

more

intense than others, some pleasant, some unpleasant, some longer, some more

fleeting. But no violence is done, there is no managing, no forceful

tearing the attention away from one thing and putting it onto another.

This also can be cultivated, and is what Arjuna calls "relaxing into clear

seeing," and what Jean Klein calls "being open to the invitation from

silence." It is another free sample that functioning can continue with no

phenomenal subject. It all takes care of itself effortlessly, and needs no

"me" to be the pivot point.

 

(iii) Attention itself is actually a phenomenal appearance in

consciousness, and not anything that we ever direct. In the exercises and

perceptual shifts in (i) and (ii) above, it seemed like we were directing

the attention or focus onto particular objects. The analogy is like

guiding or manipulating a flashlight. But if we look closely, all we can

really say happened is that a stream of appearances arose, maybe something

like this, most likely not verbalized, like these are:

 

1. "I would like to do this exercise."

2. "I will now direct attention to the object."

3. "The mind is now cognizing the object."

4. "Hmm, focussing is going well."

5. ...object, object, object...

6. "OK, it's over - the little "me" has reappeared."

7. "I was able to direct my attention steadily for 20 minutes."

8. "I did that."

 

Now, the entire stream (1) to (8) are appearances in consciousness, each

arising spontaneously. The arising of (7) is what makes us think that we

directed the whole thing. The arising of (8) is itself the thought that

there is a true controller at work. But the controller cannot be found!

Nowhere from (1) to (8) were we able to predict with certainty what thought

would occur next. And nowhere was the supposed controller anywhere in the

picture. The "controller" or phenomenal subject is a ghost, an idea at

most, nothing more than an idea suggested by the arising of (7) and (8).

All of our experience lacks a true controlling phenomenal subject, just

like this. Seen very closely and very clearly this way, it's a goodbye

kiss to the notion of the phenomenal subject. The True Subject, as

Moller-ji calls it, is the non-phenomenal, non-violent, non-controlling

awareness in which all of this happens.

 

With love,

 

--Greg

>(H) Dear Moller-Ji. I would agree with that. There is attention. There is

>relaxation of attention. I think Bruce one time referred to it as the

>spontaneous absence of intent. Relaxation of attention without intent

>happens. This may be called Grace. The higher power takes over.

>

>

>(M)You said in this regard something which I REAlLY would like to discuss

>with

>you. And that was:

>

>. (H) When attention itself becomes the tool, the method, the

>>object, then, Attention as the True Subject without an object might be

>>Recognized.

>>

>

>~~(M) This part I find slight difficulty with. I have tried on many

>occasions to do just this, and although it has become factually clear that

>attention is the focussing mechanism of 'awareness', I have never found

>that attention can in fact divide ITSELF into subject and object.

>Attention could behold a thought restructuring of itself as object and then

>experience such a subtle projection as truly existing, but for attention to

>split itself into subject and object has not been my experience. In stead,

>what has been my experience is that when attention relaxes completely out of

>the process, all that remains is what is, completely self-aware. Attention

>could be paid to aspects of this what is- ness, but that is all it can do.

>

>At the cost of boring you to death with this detail, (please bear with on

>this one) I must admit 'sensing' the implosion of attention into its

>source. But the moment this happens, and co-incident with this, there is

>the self-aware condition of what is. Would it be totally wrong to suggest

>that what is, being self-aware, has always two inherent qualities which

>could be separated for the sake of talking about it, into awareness and

>content, realising that they are one process of appearance? Because if this

>is possible, one could say that attention is part of the awareness-aspect of

>consciousness-being? The other being being?

>

>If sometime you have some free time, kindly let me know your thoughts on

>this ?

>

>Love and sincere respect,

>

>Moller

>

>

>(H) Yes, I agree with much of what you are saying Moller-ji. It seems that

>when the attention (without intent) relaxes completely into itself, there is

>the possibility of it being drawn into the Heart of Is-Ness and Recognizing

>It Self as That. The other things that you speak of, I have not thought

>about much. One of my limitations is that I am not intellectually inclined

>and detail oriented. It takes much energy for me to dissect subtle concepts

>and perhaps due to some inherent laziness, I am unable to move away from a

>basic simplicity which seems to overwhelm me and keep me in the same place.

>Greg has spoken eloquently on these issues before and can do a much better

>job than me. Also Joyce Short's recent post should be helpful as she has

>much experience in exploring various perspectives.

>

>Love

>Harsha