--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" <reavismarek@...> wrote: > > My sense is that "attention" is self, rather than an artifact (either real or > imaginary).
> The issue of neuroplasticity raises (for me) the question of how attention > can be causal in any sense since it is only through the specific channels of > the senses and psychological patterns that attention is "active" and focused. > You only become aware of something when there is some way for it to impact > you, or draw your attention to it. > So, the terms attention and consciousness are synonymous for me. When taken to the experiential level, that may be a profound insight. Attention / consciousness is necessary to be conscious OF anything. Anything we see is due to consciousness. And attention can be anywhere. Self or consciousness is thus everywhere we look. Self is seen everywhere. I took a walk with that view. Quite a fascinating adventure. Some independent thoughts: Someone said "the thing behind yours eyes is the same thing behind my eyes". Your insight takes to another level. The same thing that is behind our eyes is the same thing that our eyes see. Some further independent thoughts. Knowledge is different with different reflections of consciousness. Consciousness itself is the same in non-duality as it is in duality (that is consciousness aware of itself and aware of all else as separate from that.) However, the reflection or the appreciation is different. Non-duality is consciousness. Period. Other states have a less complete appreciation of consciousness. Yet what then is non-dual attention? And whose attention is it. And attention on what? Yet, a non-dual sage can look at a flower. Is that "attention"? In less complete appreciations of consciousness, we use lots of analogies. Each gives some flavor, yet break down at some point. There is the one of the movie screen -- its true nature is hidden, as the illusion of the film is projected upon it, the "pure" screen takes the on the attributes of the film. And nothing would be seen without the screen. The film would be unmanifest as it streams out into space -- with nothing to bounce off of. Consciousness can also be seen as the light within the projector, it too is necessary for the illusion of the film to appear. From each angle, light and screen each are passive, not causal in the sense that they do not create the illusion of the film. They just are. Yet the illusion of the film is nothing without projection light and screen. Is attention in this context the film, projected onto the screen? Is attention equivalent to experience, absent the object of experience? Another analogy, consciousness is seen as projecting out through the senses, and in doing so getting lost, or muddled with the objects of perception. Sort of the projector light framework. Pure consciousness can either be lost in the film projected outward, or instead, its core integrity still appreciated even as it illuminates the film. Witnessing. Pure light and film existing together. Another framework is the bowl of water. It is still, yet the sun shines on it, lights it up, analogous to consciousness. The bowl is not the sun, but reflects the sun. Similar to analogies of mirrors and clean vs dirty reflectors. Or the glasses that we cannot find that we are wearing. We are not aware of the glasses (consciousness), though we are looking right at /through them. If we put our attention on the glasses, we become aware of them. Equating consciousness with awareness and attention does not hold here. In these views, consciousness is passive, not causal in the sense of not putting itself on this or that, but illuminating something when, as you say, it impacts you or draws your attention, consciousness, to it, via the senses. Same idea for ideas and mind states. Is attention the same as consciousness, or is the mind state illumed by consciousness? As you say, consciousness is passive, not causal in the sense of not actively changing views, not actively shining itself on this or that. And yet that is paradoxical in that we speak of and appear to put our attention on something, like focusing a beam of light on this or that. The latter consists of the mind "choosing" what to focus on. In that sense, attention could be defined as a mind-state. Yet consciousness is necessary for attention and mind states. Is the mind capturing a partial reflection of unchanging and vast consciousness, like the bowl of water, and this reflection illuminates the mind state? Or is attention like the film screen, whereby (reflections of) consciousness impacts us or draw our attention. Or is attention, consciousness that illuminates the film, like the film projector? Or, as most will probably feel, meaningless distinctions. > I loved "I Am That" and have given it away to several folk. Nisargadatta is > still a kind of hero to me. > > (Oh, I meant to write "hero worshipper" in the original reply but > auto-correct changed it for me to "hero-worshipped". No problem, I got your meaning. > However, no heroes have ever worshipped me.) > You never know. N. is consciousness. Consciousness probably has intense love for you, as consciousness (and maybe even the surfer lawyer you). > *** > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the Nisargadatta quote, Tartbrain. I'm not the hero-worshipped > > > I once was, but Nisargadatta still gets my attention. > > > > I have read little of him, but picked up and read some of I AM THAT > > yesterday. I like him. He explained much better the point that I was > > getting at in my "Cafe" post of yesterday. > > > > > > > > And in that regards the question still remains "who" or "what" is > > > attention? > > > > Perhaps N. would say its nothing of substance, just (imaginary) bubbles in > > Consciousness, a flicker of the mind, which itself is just a flicker. > > (flicker being a word one can easily misread if one is reading rapidly, and > > in that vein, it raises another way of looking at it, "Its ALL just one > > huge Mind Fuck!" > > > > Jan Esmann, a Batgap interview that I just heard and recommend, might say > > that its intense Love. > > http://batgap.com/jan-esmann/#comments > > > > I might say its that thing that keep randomly, wandering, usually off point. > > > > > > > > > > Like what you wrote, thanks for that. > > > > Nice to have you back. > > > > > > > > Marek > > > > > > *** > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > "What fires together, wires together" is one of my favorite sutras. > > > > > > > > > > Fantastic! The educational implications are vast. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps too far of point, but there is a quirky film I recently saw, > > > > Limitless. A pill gives people their full mental potential, but of > > > > course wears off and the takers need a constant supply. Until the end, > > > > the protagonist reveals he no longer needs the supply, the experience > > > > has rewired things such that it is now permanent. > > > > > > > > Parallels to "what we put our attention on grows strong in our life". > > > > Attention, I speculate, enables or encourages new connections, > > > > rewiring. Similar to fires together (attention) wires together. > > > > > > > > Also helps explain imaging and affirmations. Our mental image rewires > > > > things and enables (the same as causal) an outer manifestation of the > > > > inner image. > > > > > > > > Does rewiring bleed down to the genetic level -- that is passing on the > > > > rewiring to future gens? Interesting implications. > > > > > > > > Have you read Buddha's Brain? or On Intelligence? > > > > > > > > A quote I came across from Nisargadatta last night. > > > > > > > > "But in fact all experience is in the mind, and even his coming to me > > > > and getting help is all within himself, he imagines an answer from > > > > without. To me there is no me, no man and no giving. All of this is > > > > merely a flicker in the mind. I am infinite peace and silence in which > > > > nothing appears, for all that appears disappears. Nobody comes for > > > > help, nobody offers help, nobody gets help, it is all but a display in > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > The pure mind sees things as they are bubbles in consciousness. These > > > > bubbles are appearing, disappearing and reappearing without having > > > > real being. No particular cause can be ascribed to them, fore each is > > > > caused by all and affects all. Each bubble is a body and all these > > > > bodies are mine." > > > > > > > > Mind is influenced, if not shaped by, those neural pathways that are > > > > fired up, connected. Helps explains, or at least opens the door of > > > > plausibility of how mind can shape what is out there (quantum soup > > > > idea) in one way (for the vast majority) and in radically different in > > > > others (Nisragadatta's view). > > > > > > > > Off on a tangent of this, brings to me the question, to what extent do > > > > transmissions, shatipat, darshan, etc also change neural pathways and > > > > ways of firing? > > > > > > > > One poster some time ago made a curious statement (to me). That he just > > > > threw it all away -- all the descriptions of others, and his own > > > > expectations, of enlightenment, and simply defined the state that he > > > > wanted to attain. Imagined it, focused on it deeply (is my > > > > understanding of his process) and he, his experience, became that. > > > > While writing that off at the time, to some extent, as wish > > > > fulfillment, it does fit within the model of neural-plasticity (which > > > > is far from saying that is what it is.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 16, 2011, at 11:49 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's just part and parcel of a mental path: mental causes > > > > > > > > create mental effects. Given what we know about neuroplasticity > > > > > > > > today, I'd have to respond: you would have to either change > > > > > > > > your mind long enough for your cortex to re-weave new > > > > > > > > connections -or- you'd have to so foundationally shift your > > > > > > > > consciousness so as to effectively alter your way of thinking > > > > > > > > and seeing the world. Otherwise you're trapped within the > > > > > > > > neural hardware of the imprisoning cortex that you yourself had > > > > > > > > volitionally woven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That felt like scripture to me on this Sunday morning Vaj, > > > > > > > thanks! I am knee deep in to a book about neuroplasticity and it > > > > > > > has really forced me to rethink my life's habits. > > > > > > > > > > > > "What fires together, wires together" is one of my favorite sutras. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
