Dropping Yi...

[Unconditioned]

Essentially you have to be aware of the possibility and you must lack an obscuring belief structure. If that's true, your intention proceeds unimpeded at once manifesting appearances naturally in accord with itself. The way this process becomes disrupted is, as I see it, twofold:

 

1. You don't know about the possibility.

 

2. You know about the possibility, but you believe that while it's generally theoretically possible, there are many "good" reasons why it's not possible for you, not right now, not right here, not on this planet, not under this condition, etc.

 

Seeing possibilities involves creativity, mystery, uninhibited wildness. That's what some people might call "right brained". Clearing away obscuring beliefs involves dissolving the old beliefs in the potent acid of contemplation. Continued sincere questioning and examination of beliefs tends to dissolve them. That's a task for the "left brain". These are very crude metaphors, so if you catch my point, I would suggest to forget what I said and not take anything I say literally, but instead rely on your own innate wisdom.

 

Very well said, thank you.

 

I would say it's "required", but awareness is always present. Awareness should never be confused with apparent objects that appear before it. Awareness is like a movie screen. It's impartial. What appears on the screen can be wildly different. A person never lacks awareness. A person might falsely associate awareness with certain shapes on the screen and if those shapes are absent, such person will think they are unaware. That kind of process has to do with the mindset, with the deep beliefs about reality and not really with awareness per se. Awareness is always ever on, ever shining with apparent objects. These "objects" appear either gross or subtle, either as physical features or as thoughts or anything else. They can be easily describable or mysterious and impossible to describe.

 

Good point, maybe this is the distinction between awareness and attention. Awareness is the impartial 'light', it's the unchanging movement, etc. no words can properly describe awareness without adding some 'view' on top of it but I think you get what I'm getting at.

 

Attention on the other hand... what is that? Is it a focused awareness driven by intention? Or just the mind dividing things up like it likes to do? Hmm...

[goldisheavy]

Good point, maybe this is the distinction between awareness and attention. Awareness is the impartial 'light', it's the unchanging movement, etc. no words can properly describe awareness without adding some 'view' on top of it but I think you get what I'm getting at.

 

Attention on the other hand... what is that? Is it a focused awareness driven by intention? Or just the mind dividing things up like it likes to do? Hmm...

 

I agree with you. Although I would say that "focus" often connotes mental effort, but attention is focused effortlessly, and effort can appear as an object of attention.

 

It's interesting, because I can't answer this right away. You made me reflect. I am still not sure, but it seems right for now. If you have any other ideas about attention, please post.

 

EDIT: I am not sure where the divisions fit in. So far I tend to think the mind is naturally divided all over the place, even with regard to that which is outside attention. The reason I think that, is when I had a mystical experience of undivided whole, how did I know it was "whole"? I knew it because I also knew what "not whole" was like, and this wasn't it. So that means my mind was dividing whole from not whole. In other words, I don't think it's possible to eliminate division altogether. Supposing you could achieve such elimination of division, if it can be said to be different from a divided mind, it's still just a state of mind that's recognized through division. So, both experientially and logically I arrive at the same thing with regard to division.

Edited March 16, 2009 by goldisheavy

[steve]

About a year ago I heard a fascinating experiment described on NPR.

Somehow the experimental design was able to measure the exact moment the the brain formulated an intention or thought to carry out a simple physical task as well as the response of the neuromuscular apparatus in initiating the activity.

The unexpected observation was that the neuromuscular activity was always observed BEFORE the participant had the thought or intention to intiate the task in question.

This suggests that 'we' are memory, not cause.

Cause is something which is before memory and is beyond thought. Thought takes a photo of it and memory stores it... that's what we do

Edited March 17, 2009 by xuesheng

[Unconditioned]

EDIT: I am not sure where the divisions fit in. So far I tend to think the mind is naturally divided all over the place, even with regard to that which is outside attention. The reason I think that, is when I had a mystical experience of undivided whole, how did I know it was "whole"? I knew it because I also knew what "not whole" was like, and this wasn't it. So that means my mind was dividing whole from not whole. In other words, I don't think it's possible to eliminate division altogether. Supposing you could achieve such elimination of division, if it can be said to be different from a divided mind, it's still just a state of mind that's recognized through division. So, both experientially and logically I arrive at the same thing with regard to division.

 

You can't have one without the other, you can't eliminate anything, what's there is there just as it is... to me that's non-divisive, there's no conflict, it's just Truth. You can't dig a hole without making mounds of dirt, it's all just shifting things around but it's all there - nothing removed, nothing added, no conflict.

 

But, when we effortlessly 'move' our awareness to a focal point are we just creating more division in our minds? What drives the intention to focus on this vs. that... is it just ego tricks? That's what I'm trying to understand... what drives intention? Can there be intention that isn't driven from our conditioning?

 

Even in posting this I recognize that I feel a sense of satisfaction, like I did something good, and that drove me to reply again... like a mouse stepping on the key to get his food... is it possible to have intention without the extra layers? Hmm...

 

Edit: the NPR story from xuesheng gives us evidence that the possibility is there... and doubting the possibility hinders it's manefestation while believing in it can create an untrue representation... wow my head hurts, time for some sleep!

Edited March 17, 2009 by Unconditioned