The Focus of Awareness

What is mechanism that "decides" what appears in Awareness? There appears to be a choice like a camera lens zooming in and out.
It seems logical to me this choice is part of phenomena, however it is quite mysterious, and I cannot examine the mechanism directly. In this thread I am putting the question out there for comments that may help.

What would it mean to examine the mechanism of choice directly, and how is that different from what you can already do?

HI, Gary. Do you mean awareness or attention? Everything happens in awareness. But if you mean to ask "what is it that draws attention to certain things and not other things?" then I don't believe there's any one mechanism. There's an unending stream of sensory data flowing at, around and through us, all the time. Attention is drawn to those things that a myriad mind processes give importance to. What happens when you hear a loud noise? Do you choose to hear it ? No. Most of what we experience is completely involuntary. It's the product of innate mental reactions to other stimuli in the immediate vicinity or in our mind. What becomes prominent in attention is the product of all those "automatic pilot" mind things going on, and that's involuntary almost all the time.

When you do choose to pay attention to a particular thing that, too, is just another mind process.

Are you looking for the one big boss process?

"What is mechanism that "decides" what appears in Awareness? There appears to be a choice like a camera lens zooming in and out.
It seems logical to me this choice is part of phenomena, however it is quite mysterious, and I cannot examine the mechanism directly. In this thread I am putting the question out there for comments that may help.

"

What is mechanism that "decides" what appears in Awareness?

The previous condition

cause and effect impersonal and impartial

When this is, that is
This arising, that arises
When this is not, that is not
This ceasing, that ceases.

"What would it mean to examine the mechanism of choice directly, and how is that different from what you can already do?"
A choice to move a finger gives a resultant stimuli tthat moves a finger, perhaps we could say the formless touches form. This is also mechanism that dictates what sense stimuli will be available like moving the eyes to look at something different. The patterns of information giving a result can be observed. I cannot see the mechanism of shifting attention from from one stimuli to another, or the formless to the formless.

Yes Chris; thanks for clarifying the word attention is more accurate. For attention to be drawn to that which a myriad of mind processes give importance to there must be a mechanism that dictates what presents in awareness. The auto pilot explains much but with a noise (not a loud one) it feels like concentration gives rise to a choice. Concentration seems to be without an observable mechanism and therefore giving rise to a sense of self making a choice. To put the question in an analogy, if we take the auto pilot to be one level of abstraction how is it possible for the auto pilot to look at itself (not the data it receives) without hiding part of the auto pilot (which it must to look at a part) while (obviously) being a whole auto pilot.

It's easy to over-complicate this. It really is very mechanical. But that's not a satisfying answer, is it? We want more. We want there to be a governing "thing" that decides what we pay attention to. Why is that? Why can't you find it, even though you keep looking?

"... I cannot examine the mechanism directly..." -- Gary

These are some awesome investigations! And, from a personal perspective, very timely for the situations I've been finding myself in lately.

One thing Daniel Ingram brought to my attention on some DhO thread somewhere was the interplay between effort and surrender. In my experience, attention is largely governed by those two forces. If it's helpful, we might simplify the matter to correlate these forces with contraction and expansion, or cold and warm, or solid and liquid.

In my opinion, though, it's important to keep in mind that these kinds of 'oppositionals' are simplifications; they're ultimately illusory, conceptual tools.

We might say that the sense of an individual, separate self is a tool like that, as well, one that we might be inclined to outgrow.

What creates suffering and what puts an end to it?

In terms of the mechanism of attention, I'd say that persistent lack of attention (ignorance) to aspects of the field of experience creates suffering, and persistent inclusive attention (knowledge) to the more and more of the field of experience is what puts an end to suffering.

(Which is not to say that I've mastered this, but it seems to be the path, from what I've learned in study and practice)

"
It's easy to over-complicate this. It really is very mechanical. But that's not a satisfying answer, is it? We want more. We want there to be a governing "thing" that decides what we pay attention to. Why is that? Why can't you find it, even though you keep looking?

"... I cannot examine the mechanism directly..." -- Gary

"

Forgive me Chris but I am not seeing how simple this is, although quite likely it is. I use to see it the way you describe but I cannot get back there at the moment.

Before me now I can see a cardboard box that I can focus on and there is also the sound of a chainsaw I can focus on. The focus moves from one to the other, feeling like there is a choice in the matter, what is the mechanical means by which this happens (responding to your saying it is very mechanical). Is this "movement" really mechanical with a prior condition? If so can someone amongst us put their hand up and say they know anything of these conditions. Who can shift the focus without sensing a controller? Or is it an assumption to say ALL movement is mechanical with cause and effect. If we are going to make assumptions it seems to me in this case it would be equally valid to say at this level there is no cause and effect, no time. Anyway I don't want to particularly entertain myself with assumptions at the moment. I am not saying there is a self, probably more likely not being able to objectify means I am embedded in an apparent self.


For those that maintain EVERYTHING is cause and effect do you really know this to be the case or are there assumptions?

"I cannot see the mechanism of shifting attention from from one stimuli to another, or the formless to the formless."

Is choice unique in this respect? There are all sorts of mental mechanisms you don't have introspective access to. You can't see the mechanisms by which your sensory system interprets these squiggles on the screen as words. You can't see the mechanisms by which a good idea pops into your head. You can't see the mechanisms by which you make thousands of delicate and intricately balanced fine motor movements many times a second in order to type. etc etc.

The thing that governs the focus of attention is a mental process to which you only have partial introspective access. However, the same could be said of just about any content of experience-- it reflects a mental process to which you only have partial introspective access. So I am not sure there is an issue here unique to choice per se. I'd say the strategy is the same in any event-- just observe whatever it is you can observe. desire, intention, the sense of a controller, action, inquisitiveness about the process of choice, confusion and interest, etc.

"Is choice unique in this respect? There are all sorts of mental mechanisms you don't have introspective access to. You can't see the mechanisms by which your sensory system interprets these squiggles on the screen as words. You can't see the mechanisms by which a good idea pops into your head. You can't see the mechanisms by which you make thousands of delicate and intricately balanced fine motor movements many times a second in order to type. etc etc."
No choice is not unique in respect to not knowing the mental mechanisms. Choice has been singled out because it ebbeds a sense of self, that I cannot objectify.

"I'd say the strategy is the same in any event-- just observe whatever it is you can observe. desire, intention, the sense of a controller, action, inquisitiveness about the process of choice, confusion and interest, etc."
Good point, there is no need to stop in our tracks over this!

"No choice is not unique in respect to not knowing the mental mechanisms. Choice has been singled out because it ebbeds a sense of self, that I cannot objectify."

Why do you think you can't objectify it? Is it because you don't have access to the underlying mechanisms?

Assuming the answer is yes-- there are the mechanisms that determine choice, and there is the sense of self that seems to create. You obviously can experience the latter, so you can objectify it too, don't you think? You don't need to understand the causal determinants of a content of experience in order to objectify it. You just have to notice it and treat it as an object of awareness.

If you can isolate the raw phenomenal feeling of the sense of controller/self and know that it's an object of experience (and so not the subject), what more is there to do?

"Why do you think you can't objectify it? Is it because you don't have access to the underlying mechanisms?

Assuming the answer is yes-- there are the mechanisms that determine choice, and there is the sense of self that seems to create. You obviously can experience the latter, so you can objectify it too, don't you think? You don't need to understand the causal determinants of a content of experience in order to objectify it. You just have to notice it and treat it as an object of awareness.

If you can isolate the raw phenomenal feeling of the sense of controller/self and know that it's an object of experience (and so not the subject), what more is there to do?

"

As you have noted while observing what arises directly from the senses, the raw phenomenal feeling there is not a problem, there is cause and effect.

I am saying just move up one level and that which watches the controller / self seems to be the same controller / self which is why I am questioning the cause and effect mechanism. This is also inherent language use "the sense of self that I create" because the sense of self is the self same "I" that creates it. This being the case what can effect what? I cannnot see there can be cause and effect or any decision being made, neither can there be mechanism. Both put in an appearance as if they are a whole viewing each other, it seems obsurd to be talking cause and effect from this view point. But then the shift in attention does occur and I have no idea what it is or how (except for what happens at the sensate level). I just do not know...

Gary, this is just my humble opinion but might it be more fruitful to examine why the attention/apparent choice mechanism is bothering you than it is to try and deconstruct the mechanism itself right now? Deconstructing the mechanism is something we've all tried to do. I never found a controller, decider, boss, supervisor... what have you. So, it could be that I'm a fool (probably so anyway!) or maybe that "thing" just doesn't exist and we create its illusion to make ourselves more comfortable about our experience. What do you think?

And hey, don't get anxious about this. We all go down blind paths and end up in box canyons at times. It's all part of getting there.

Back to reiterate one thing -- confusion on the path is necessary. At least that's my version. It's what motivates us to figure things out. So far from being a waste of time, and especially far from getting worried about it or feeling silly or stupid, revel in it! It is part of what makes the thing work.

You could try taking as object the subtle sense that the watcher and the doer are the same. How do you know you have this feeling? There must be some subtle cognitive experience indicating this, but that's just another object of experience that is known and so not the subject.

If you take a really pure view of the subject of experience, it cannot do or be or feel anything because all such attributions wind up being objects. Anything that is known is an object and so not the subject. Consider that all doing is known and expressed by means of sensations (sensory and mental) that are part of the body/mind complex, and all of this is observed.

"Consider that all doing is known and expressed by means of sensations (sensory and mental) that are part of the body/mind complex, and all of this is observed."


Yes, this is certainly true. Of course, it's one thing to say it and think it, accept it intellectually. It's quite another thing to feel it in your bones. Gary is having the same experience of experience we all have innately. We grow up with it. It's extremely powerful. It''s based on habit and comfort and it is a real pain in the arse to change.

"
Yes, this is certainly true. Of course, it's one thing to say it and think it, accept it intellectually. It's quite another thing to feel it in your bones.
"

Very true, but in my experience understanding it intellectually is a great help towards feeling it in your bones. If you can understand the point intellectually you can begin to see how to put it into practice: this feeling, thought, body, mind, etc is observed and so is not the observer; this mind and body is an object of experience and so not the subject of experience.

Yes. I just didn't want Gary thinking he's off the rails or that this stuff is easy. No need to reply. I get your point.

I am re-reading these posts and it occurred to me "cause and effect" is conceptual "choice" is conceptual. I feel this conceptual thing to be its own container in which each iteration arises and remains. That which remains to be built, when built upon is also confined in the conceptual container. The strange thing is I don't know what realising what I have written here is. It seems in some way conceptual but then it cannot be just that.

Gary, you lost me there. Want to try again? You still seem to be searching for a mechanism that doesn't exist.

"
Gary, you lost me there. Want to try again? You still seem to be searching for a mechanism that doesn't exist.


"

I think I lost myself .

I sort of had "flash understanding" that evades me now (but was with me when I wrote the previous post), I can describe it. I felt conceptual things are contained or limited and cannot describe all experience. So choice, cause and effect, or mechanisms cannot move beyond their boundaries. I could not really describe what the "flash understanding" was, but it seemed in part conceptual then more.

I donot know that I have really said much more than my previous post, so to answer the question more directly; searching for that mechanism keeps arising, but for a short time there it did not, at that time I knew there was no conceptual answer.