If your mind is fixed on a certain spot,
It will be seized by that spot and
No activities can be performed efficiently.
Not to fix your mind anywhere is essential.
Not fixed anywhere,
The mind is everywhere.
The Original Mind is like water which flows freely,
Whereas the deluded mind is like ice.
There is a passage in the Diamond Sutra that says:
“The mind should operate without abiding anywhere."
A
If your mind is fixed on a certain spot,
It will be seized by that spot and
No activities can be performed efficiently.
Not to fix your mind anywhere is essential.
Not fixed anywhere,
The mind is everywhere.
The Original Mind is like water which flows freely,
Whereas the deluded mind is like ice.
There is a passage in the Diamond Sutra that says:
“The mind should operate without abiding anywhere."
“Attention consists of suspending our thought, leaving it detached, empty and ready to be penetrated by the object. It means holding in our minds, within reach of this thought, but on a lower level and not in contact with it, the diverse knowledge we have acquired which we are forced to make use of. Above all our thought should be empty, waiting, not seeking anything, but ready to receive in its naked truth the object which is to penetrate it.” Simone Weil from “Gravity and Grace”
Interesting contrast.
This would be a perfect sign to place over the door at the entrance to a cancer ward.
I think this is the central problem of our existence. We must focus our mind if we want to be aware of details but we can’t remain “stuck” in them and lose (intuitive?) awareness of the Whole.
The focus on details is emphasized in the analytical Western civilization and detachment from thoughts and structures is emphasized in the holistic Eastern civilization. Yet it is a balance between the two that is necessary for harmonious creation…
Mind flowing like water… I like that idea. A similar one that is quite well-known is about flying. You fly close enough to the ground to see the intricate beauty down there, but not so close that you would crash. A kind of dynamic balance between heaven and earth.
Hebrews 12
2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Hi Angel, Nick,
I didn’t see the contrast – am I missing something?
The mind should operate without abiding anywhere …
Attention consists of suspending our thought, leaving it detached, empty and ready …
Shalom
Yes it is good to not be obsessed or narrow minded;
now for fun with contradictions.
If your mind is fixed on a certain spot,
It will be seized by that spot and
Those activities fixed upon will be performed efficiently.
Not to fix your mind anywhere is confusion, and a state of those lost.
Not fixed anywhere,
The mind is everywhere, thus spread too thin and un-capable of any grand task.
The Original Mind is like water which flows freely,
But it flows into a river, which is concintrated only in one direction for a while.
There is a passage in the Dan~ Sutra that says:
“The mind should operate with concentration and comitment."
“The mind should operate without abiding anywhere” - The Diamond Sutra
I felt that the attention is on the heart through focussing the mind and thus allowing the heart to master the mind.
I was really hoping for a discussion about the topic from a Buddhist’s perspective.
Espavo
A
A
Attention is a tool of consciousness. In order for us to master consciousness, we have to get in touch with the heart so it can become our ally. We cannot do it now because all our room for emotion is caught up in the small artificially created self justifying reactions. The heart feels the value of consciousness and when cleaned off, contains the emotional force “will” to keep the zen arrow true on its course and not drift off into la la land. The difficulty is first finding the heart since it is hidden behind some “wonderful” emotions which are so much more appealing.
I tend to believe that your quote has been taken out of context or badly translated.
The mind is being described as one entity with one level so attention becomes an either/or question. The mind is one way or another.
Simone IMO has got it right and is speaking Buddhism here but not modern Western Buddhism that has captivated the day. Intelligence functions on different levels of the mind.
Bob wrote:
What is normally missed in modern times is levels of awareness. Simone is asserting that the level of attention used during normal life, as with all higher mammals, is at one level. However the attention that comes from above observes this level. This is why she states that:
This is making room for this quality of attention.
This place of higher attention remains free of the level at which our lower or earthly attention is functioning. The forest does not become lost through fixations with the trees
This is objective thought. It is impartial untainted experience of the external world only possible for us in this state of attention. It is this impartial open experience, consciously maintained, that allows for the void to be filled from above.
From this perspective a person’s psych could be fixed on a spot like in solving a math problem but yet be free and detached on a higher level since they have been consciously separated.
This is also the Buddhism that I am aware of.
Why do you persist in tormenting me with your Simone Weilism? Is it because you think I’m asleep Nick and that you think Ms. Weil has all the answers to the matter of awakening? You would do far better if you stopped trying to shove her down my throat.
I asked for Buddhism! Let me spell it out for you.
B U D D H I S M. Buddhism.
A
And people wonder why I’ve been pursuing the Alternative Religion Board. Its stated purpose would be the shared search rather than the debate of spiritual meaning so would exclude this nastiness and confine it to those with the courage to care rather than complain.
Attention, though at the core of essential religious practice is largely ignored at its depth. Attention can be presented in different ways along with the lines and flow of the teaching but Attention is Attention.
I make the obvious remark that Simone is describing attention as it exists in the older Buddhism and how I understand Buddhism. I also post it to answer Bob’s question to me. But my understanding of the mental content of attention as it relates to attention as described in the Satipatthana Sutta is not the politically correct escapism.
It is a shame but a good example of as it stands now, nothing of real religious quality can come from the atmosphere that has been acquired over time. It is a good thing I didn’t post my favorite duck quote as an analogy to layers of attention. The poor thing would have ended up in the soup.
Yes, it is possible to remain “detached,” and attentive on one level, dare I express another concept also in Buddhism, while quickly paying concentrated attention to a necessary earthly task.
But unless a person strokes the members of the “beautiful” people around here, expressions of something new but unflattering are scorned. One thing about the beautiful people is that they are so busy thinking and saying wonderful things that they become closed to the point of being outright nasty to what does not appear “wonderful"and lovely” But the sad truth is that removing the rose colored glasses does not appear either so wonderful or lovely at first causing all this nastiness. Frankly it is a disgrace to all those in the past that have suffered so greatly in their honest pursuit of meaning and the love of wisdom that this nastiness should be so celebrated and condoned.
But it is the spirit of the times so in the absence of the New Board, the best that can be done is to continue classifying the various distinctions of the expression “yo momma sucks.” Right now I think 147 known variations have been analysed and classified give or take a few. So I’ll consider my conclusion to all this as variation #148 of this subtle expression: “YO MOMMA SUCKS.”
How many times will you have me request that you stop quoting Simone Weil in my threads? Do you get pleasure out of it Nick? Is it fun for you to press an issue that I am not interested in? Please, by all means, start your own thread but I do not want to hear about Simone Weil’s perspective. How many times do I need to ask you to stop quoting Simone Weil to me? How many times Nick? I’ll try one last time.
Please stop quoting Simone Weil in my threads and in fact any thread where you wish to address me? Is that clear? Or is there another way you would like me to epress that I am not interested in Simone Weil. In fact, I wish for you to stay out of my threads altogether. Do you understand? Stay out of my threads.
A
A
To the contrary I’l be following you and JT around posting as much as I can in response so that my common sense will become so annoying that you’ll both help me to get the new board so as to be rid of me. That way peace will once again be restored.
I’d like to make one thing clear to anyone reading this thread. Buddhism itself in its essence is not closed minded in the way you see it being represented here. Some actually appreciate philosophy as the "love of Wisdom"and sharing new ideas as such without violent negativity.
Yes, Simone is even welcomed at the Buddhist House as a part of the ancient truths at the core of Buddhism and Christianity. It is a shame that in this day and age such attitudes, attempts for open minds and hearts, are so rare. This love of wisdom was at one time important to philosophy. Now the current question is debating variation of #149 of the seemingly eternal affirmation: “Yo Momma Sucks.”
Hi Nick,
So what she is saying is that there is an attention that observes that which we could call “normal attention†from a distance. This sounds a lot like the attention of contemplation, which too, is not just the normal level of attention, but detached and receptive. It isn’t, however, so unusual even in mainline Christianity to hear voices say that prayer isn’t speaking, but listening – I was contemplating such a statement in a German prayerbook I have only a few days ago.
In fact, your words seem to resemble very much those of Roy Masters, who I listened to yesterday as a result of a link someone set.
I am often amazed by the amount of criticism that Christians voice at Buddhism and it seems to me to be as a result of not understanding their own tradition. The aim of both traditions is to be caught up in the great Unity, which by the wisdom of Sages in both traditions is “nothingness†– a state of freedom from the “thingness†of this life. This state may not be completed in this life, due to our trappings and responsibilities, but the “Way†can be observed if we discipline ourselves.
Shalom
.
.
Hi Bob
Yes, one level of attention can be receptive while another underneath it is engaged in a task. I’ve experienced it as seeing myself.
It isn’t, however, so unusual even in mainline Christianity to hear voices say that prayer isn’t speaking, but listening – I was contemplating such a statement in a German prayerbook I have only a few days ago.
This is why Simone’s observation seems so absurd to many.
This is pure listening but not just with the ears but with the whole of oneself.
I am often amazed by the amount of criticism that Christians voice at Buddhism and it seems to me to be as a result of not understanding their own tradition. The aim of both traditions is to be caught up in the great Unity, which by the wisdom of Sages in both traditions is “nothingness†– a state of freedom from the “thingness†of this life. This state may not be completed in this life, due to our trappings and responsibilities, but the “Way†can be observed if we discipline ourselves.
Here is where it becomes fascinating. There seems to be a difference in the perspectives of Christianity and Buddhism which could not be the case at their higher levels. Where Christianity speaks of our nothingness, “wretchedness,” Buddhism seems to assert the nothingness of the “void.” The Holy Spirit can fill the void we create in ourselves by the power of this higher quality of attention by becoming open “vulnerable” which begins to cohere something out of our nothingness. Buddhism, at least modern western Buddhism doesn’t seem to speak of the Spirit but rather just the avoidance of suffering. Yet I see it there in Tibetan Buddhism. So it seems that a person has to be willing to dig beneath the surface.
But these are difficult ideas. It requires a mutually respectful collective attitude to share on these things. It cannot happen when surrounded by hysterics and Rocky… Otherwise it quickly turns defensive with nothing gained.
So for now, until there is an alternative, it is better to leave such speculations alone and concentrate on concerning ourselves with contemplating the different variations of how “Yo Momma Sucks”
LiquidAngel - ever desireless, remember ?..
There is a bit of blindness here. LA asked that the discussion be about the principles as discussed in Buddhism. She did NOT ask for the discussion to be turned into another esoteric christianity interpretation of Buddhism. That the content of what she wanted to discuss shares similarities with other paths may be interesting, but Simone Weil isn’t the only person in the world who had insight. Her frustration and comments were, and still are, justified. The world of heart/mind is of many colors. It isn’t just Simone Weil pink.
This thread contains the same problem of many over that last year. There is little or no respect for any point of view that doesn’t contain Weil or Needleman quotes. It is as if they are the only people in the last century with any insight into spirituality. The Weil ‘song’ is an endless loop of tape played over and over until it drowns out any other sound. That LA, as well as a few others, could be sick of it, should be understandable to all.
JT - from la la land
(LA, I didn’t mean to speak for you. Apologies)
JT
The only thing you said that was true is: "JT - from la la land."
When the thread was posted, there were no responses. I know enough about Buddhism to appreciate its concern for the function of attention. So by way of deepening it I express something that is meaningful to me.
If it warranted my intention was to post a link to an explanation of Attention by a Buddhist describing types of Attention. In the old days when people were actually open minded, it was called comparing perspectives. It actually is a pleasurable experience I’m sorry that it disturbs your security in la la land
JT
Why not include the Bible, Meister Eckhart, and Plato while you’re at it. God forbid someone would ask you to think out of the box on a philosophy site. You even openly contradict yourself:
Oh I get it. Acknowledge perspectives YOU agree with and the rest are to be damned. Give it a rest.