Addiction/Moller

[Guest guest]

Moller wrote:

> 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.

 

Thanks for your thoughts Moller, and Harsha, and Greg, and whoever else I've

missed...

 

There is identification with duality (ordinary waking awareness).

 

Then there is a state of witnessing where the observer is entirely separate

from everything observed (Osho call this "Realization", MMY calls it "Cosmic

Consciousness", Barry Long says it is 'beyond death'. If thoughts arise they

are witnessed, no thought can impact the observer, any sense or thought

activity is witnessed, the observer is not pulled into the sense active,

does not identify in any way with the sense activity.

 

This state is partially non-dual because the observer is entirely

permanently independent from the duality or play of opposites. I say

"partially non-dual": this state where the witness is non-varying is

enlightenment, however, according to Osho,MMY,Barry Long etc... this initial

realization of immortality may rise to even a higher truth.

 

Even in this state of realization (as Osho calls it, see his book 'in search

of the miraculous') a duality remains: the observer is established but there

is still "the other" as Osho says, everything seen is separate from the

observer.

 

They point to a higher state, a finality of NonDuality (ha?) where the

distinction between the observer and observed dissolves such that the

entirety of creation is literally perceived as oneself. (MMY calls this

'Unity Consciousness', Osho says the 6th or 7th level as does Barry Long,

see Barry's book "The Origins of Man and the Universe : The Myth That Came

to Life".

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this:

a) Realization is "witnessing" made permanent (arguments from those who

speak from experience welcomed, I'm anticipating), I think the point is

worth making cause it might have significance for one's quest.

 

b) Thoughts about non-duality are just inspirational and in fact the

ultimate nonduality is apparently a stage AFTER realization. This might have

some significance for the quest: thoughts about non-duality aren't even

realization: identification with thought is the barrier to realization.

 

c) This higher state of "unity consciousness" or ultimate non-duality can be

inferred from glimpses of "separation" or witnessing or realization or Dan's

"original stillness". Conceptually, this witnessing is TWO: the witness and

the other, conceptually from this we can at least infer a state of ONE.

 

Roger

[Guest guest]

At 03:27 PM 3/13/00 -0700, Roger Isaacs wrote:

>Then there is a state of witnessing where the observer is entirely separate

>from everything observed (Osho call this "Realization", MMY calls it "Cosmic

>Consciousness", Barry Long says it is 'beyond death'.

 

Who's MMY?

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

 

Thank you for your kind involvement in this discussion. I will try to

respond to what you are pointing to from my own experiences when things get

somewhat clear during meditation. I have very little knowledge of the

traditions, although I have done my fair bit of studying over the years from

the popular books around on these matters. This discussion for me is an

enquiry, and not my statements against yours or anybody's. Things at this

level are very open and I deeply appreciate your, Harsha and Roger's input.

I have a sense that we here possibly touching on very important issues

relating to the possibility of a coherent form of practice which may allow

for the gradual revelation of the non-dual condition of being.

 

Greg said:

 

And

>attention cannot comprehend that which comprehends attention.

 

~~(M) This is very beautiful and exquisitely stated.

 

Greg:

 

<Moller's interest in attention seems to be in the stabilization of

attention, which

>might lead to its relaxation.

 

~~(M) Yes this is my experience. Allow me just to add that at this point

I do not only refer to attention, but to thought as well and also would like

to point to the fact the rather subtle activities referred to here have an

absolute minimum, if not total absense, of will operating.

 

Greg, you then go on to explain how Patanjali has described this process.

Please allow me question some of this, as, the way it is explained or

stated, does not quite reflect my own experience.

 

Greg:

 

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.

 

 

~~(M) The first step I find to be the case. The second I can relate to if

it means that so little effort of will is used here, and that the whole

attention/thought opration has become so quiet that there seems to be

general easing of the process of attention holding its object inplace. Very

little force, little effort. Attention and its object seems to be in a kind

of symbiotic relationship at ease with one another, but dependent on one

another. The third one, is difficult for me to relate to in such exact

terms, judging by my own experience.

 

I am not sure if the object can ever exist by itself. Somewhere in the

background still lurks the abserver. At least not while we talk of an

object per se. To my experience at this point I feel perhaps more inclined

to say that the 'collapse' you are talking about may in fact correspond with

what I have called the relaxation of attention. Only when attention

disappears as a functioning operative in this process, can I describe the

process as moving out of a strict sense of duality to a great sense of

non-dual appearance. You VERY BEAUTIFULLY describe my own experience later

on when you mention:

>(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.

>

~~(M) The only part of the above that I feel somewhat uncomfortable with

is the notion that such relaxation can be 'cultivated' and as such must be

seen or categorised, as you later do, as an act of manipulation by the 'I'.

 

for me such an act of letting go of attention is total. No I can be present

here because both the main creators of the "I"-sense has been left behind

for the moment in this act and these are: Attention and thought in their

unconscious and habitual association with one another. No, this relaxation,

although a verb, is a non-doing. Will cannot direct the complete relaxation

of attention. Ask me not what, but something else allows for this. perhaps

Patanjali meant here a kind of RELATIVE relaxation of attention as I have

described in my understanding of (2) as above. I refer however, to a total

relaxation of attention which leaves me just with a spread-out sense of

what is-ness, appearing by itself. 'Functioning can indeed continue with no

(apparent) phenomenal subject'.

 

Greg said:

>(iii) Attention itself is actually a phenomenal appearance in

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

 

~~(M) Yes, Greg. this is true, except that perhaps you are using the wrong

word whenyou say that we cannot direct attention. I somehow have the sense

that I can, and do, direct attention at will during the course of the day as

and when needed, like in concentration or when something requires my

'attention'. But this is of little importance for this discussion.

Attention can be isolated as sensed as an activity. This is very subtle,

but been noted on occasions.

 

Please pardon me for not going to the 1-8 descriptions at this posting. I

am a little tired now, and will most certainly take up the issues you so

beautifully raised with a future posting.

 

With love and gratitude,

 

Moller.

[Guest guest]

 

J M de la Rouviere [moller]

Tuesday, March 14, 2000 6:21 AM

Re: Addiction/Moller

 

J M de la Rouviere <moller

 

Dear Greg,

 

Thank you for your kind involvement in this discussion. I will try to

respond to what you are pointing to from my own experiences when things get

somewhat clear during meditation. I have very little knowledge of the

traditions, although I have done my fair bit of studying over the years from

the popular books around on these matters. This discussion for me is an

enquiry, and not my statements against yours or anybody's. Things at this

level are very open and I deeply appreciate your, Harsha and Roger's input.

I have a sense that we here possibly touching on very important issues

relating to the possibility of a coherent form of practice which may allow

for the gradual revelation of the non-dual condition of being.

 

 

Let me join you Moller in thanking Greg for his recent post. For those who

may not know, Greg has a very comprehensive and broad knowledge of both

Western and Eastern philosophies and is a most eloquent writer and expresses

subtle ideas with power and elegance. Greg also has a quality of Ahimsa to

him that is very special. Thank you Joyce also for your contribution. And

thank you Linda for your recent post on Prananyama. There are so many wise

and talented people here that it is futile for me to try to name everyone.

Thank you for this Satsang.

 

Love

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Moller,

 

I promised to keep my posts shorter and simpler, so in the interests of

that, I'll snip out the points of agreement and stuff, and focus on

questions and clarifications, etc. :-)

>Greg:

>

>[Patanjali]

>>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.

>

>

>~~(M) The first step I find to be the case. The second I can relate to if

>it means that so little effort of will is used here, and that the whole

>attention/thought opration has become so quiet that there seems to be

>general easing of the process of attention holding its object inplace. Very

>little force, little effort. Attention and its object seems to be in a kind

>of symbiotic relationship at ease with one another, but dependent on one

>another. The third one, is difficult for me to relate to in such exact

>terms, judging by my own experience.

 

I think you actually described the entire process! The feeling of will or

effort comes more in step 1, less in step 2, and none in step 3. And the

actually come more amorphously, maybe as a flow, the way you are describing

it. The division into Patanjali's particular steps is artificial and for

convenience, of course.

>I am not sure if the object can ever exist by itself. Somewhere in the

>background still lurks the abserver.

 

I agree with you. I think that's just the way Patanjali describes it in

this verse. You know, like after being captivated by a beautiful sunset,

we "come back" and speak poetically and say, "Wow, I was gone, all there

was, was the sunset!" Other places in the book, Patanjali speaks more

formally and acknowledges that nothing exists outside consciousness.

 

>~~(M) The only part of the above that I feel somewhat uncomfortable with

>is the notion that such relaxation can be 'cultivated' and as such must be

>seen or categorised, as you later do, as an act of manipulation by the 'I'.

>

>for me such an act of letting go of attention is total.

 

Total, really? Well, then why would you ever have to do it more than

once?? :-)

 

The cultivation is something, for example that the teacher Arjuna talks

about in his book RELAXING INTO CLEAR SEEING, and he teaches seminars in

it, and even how to train others to do it. See

http://www.livingessence.com/train.htm

 

Now of course the attention let go naturally by itself too, with no

manipulation. But to the extent it is seemingly cultivated as a meditative

process, it is a voluntary doing. And there's seemingly an "I" doing it.

There's not REALLY an "I" doing it because it's all appearance in

awareness, but it seems like there's an "I" in the driver's seat at times,

wouldn't you say?

>Will cannot direct the complete relaxation

>of attention. Ask me not what, but something else allows for this. perhaps

>Patanjali meant here a kind of RELATIVE relaxation of attention as I have

>described in my understanding of (2) as above. I refer however, to a total

>relaxation of attention which leaves me just with a spread-out sense of

>what is-ness, appearing by itself.

 

Yes, I think I know what you mean by "complete" here. And I agree, the

attention, when seen as the directed beam, is just the flashlight of the

doer. So it's natural that the sense of the do-er disappears when the

sense of attention disappears.

>Greg said:

>

>>(iii) Attention itself is actually a phenomenal appearance in

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

>

>~~(M) Yes, Greg. this is true, except that perhaps you are using the wrong

>word whenyou say that we cannot direct attention. I somehow have the sense

>that I can, and do, direct attention at will during the course of the day as

>and when needed, like in concentration or when something requires my

>'attention'. But this is of little importance for this discussion.

 

Actually, I think it is the *crux* of the discussion. Yes, the sense of

being able to direct attention is often quite palpable and strong. But

this sense is something that arises in consciousness, then subsides. Does

it mean there really *is* a do-er? Is the do-er more than a thought? A

thought is inert, rising and falling - can a mere thought control or

predict another thought? Two thoughts do not even touch each other.... Is

attention more than a thought? If the do-er was not present during the

relaxed attention, where did it go, and where did it re-appear from? What

makes it the *same* do-er as the one that left the scene during the relaxed

attention? These are rhetorical questions....

 

It is the belief in the reality of this doer that is the great fiction. To

refer back to your comment before, all arisings are spontaneous, including

the sense that "I did that." If you look very closely, don't you find that

attention is not really even a fixed or continuous commodity?? Isn't it

more like the movement of a bouncing ball in motion-picture frames?? We

*conclude* that it is a controlled, continuous thing - but even that

conclusion is a spontaneous arising. What is continuous is the

Consciousness in which the thoughts appear, but the thoughts, when looked

at cloesly, are intermittent.....

 

Love,

 

--Greg