Conversation

OK, a bit less facetiously: Awareness of any given thing does not require a "you" "being" "aware". Not talking ontology, here. Just simple technique. If you are "being" something into the picture, that is a *distraction*, unless you are concentrating on that being-thing.
1
1
There is a mode of awareness that looks, for example, like "I am pouring tea". The "I am" here is superfluous to the "pouring" and the "tea", and vice-versa.
1
2
There is another mode of awareness, applicable to the same situation, that looks like "I am". Or like "pouring tea". If you want to really get into one of these things, they can always be dissociated from each other (as objects of concentration, that is).
1
3
I don't know that I particularly know what I'm talking about here. This is just how I've tended to break down my concentration practice.
1
Replying to
Always interesting to know different perspectives on a common topic :) For me, concentration is really hard when I don't want to do something, and I lack severe discipline. So I try to take breaks in between often, and do things I like, and take my time.
1
Replying to
I struggle to get started with work I don't want to do, too. The technique does work for that, but I'm sometimes too anxious to apply it. However, just the awareness of any of these things is sufficient to cultivate deep concentration on them, even if it doesn't produce action.
1
1
I'm not saying this model is complete or airtight, but it does have some practical implications: - You can't actually "focus" on anything, but you can be more aware of it than of anything else. - Because you can't focus, "focusing" is itself a distraction from the object.
1
1
"Paying attention", when construed as action distinct from the object, becomes a sort of performance, akin to looking busy instead of working. If you are *really* paying attention to an object, there is no paying attention. Unless you are paying attention to "paying attention"
1
1
Show replies