The Nature of Attention

Hi, my question is about attention, the rising of attention in order to know something or other. And then the sinking back. What does the separate self do with it? I mean, my question is not clear. Because I've been watching my attention for a moment now, and there is intention and attention as I direct my attention to something or somewhere, or some thought or whatever, an object. But then there is the sinking back, and it seems to me that I cannot be both... If I'm aware of something, I cannot... The attention is directed. I don't know the question. Actually, it's the nature of... I know that it's the focusing of awareness, but I want to go deeper on the nature of attention. It triggers my curiosity. Because it's something like palpable at the beginning, and then there's something known. It's about the nature. I know the nature of attention is awareness, but what triggers it? Just to explore it. Attention, to begin with, seems to be a movement from the subject, awareness, to the object. Right. It seems from attention, atendaria, stretching of ourselves towards the object. So to begin with, it seems that if attention is a pathway, or that on one end of the path is our self-awareness, and on the other end of the path is the object, there seems to be a distance between them. We go back and forth on this pathway, either towards the object or back towards ourself. So this is a valid model, but not a very accurate model of our experience. Because we never really leave ourself in order to come in contact with an object. And the object is in fact never at a distance from the one that knows it, the subject that knows it. So this model of stretching our attention away from its source awareness towards an object, it's a valid model at a certain stage of our understanding, but we should abandon it fairly early on, because no object is ever at a distance from the awareness that knows it. It's quite easy to check how much distance is there between a thought and the knowing of it. How far is the perception of this room from the awareness with which it is now. So it's not that stretching is much more shrink? It's not really a stretching. No. It's more like, so abandon the model of stretching attention from a subject towards an object. Think more of the field of awareness or the screen of awareness, and everything you experience is a coloring of that screen. Yes, but if I experience something, it means that my attention has been taken there. Yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't be consciously the separate self or me or whatever I call. Awareness colors its own screen, colors itself in the form of experience and then loses itself in that experience. Like John Smith, the actor who assumes the role of King Lear. There's no distance between King Lear and John Smith. King Lear is just a coloring of the activity of John Smith. But nevertheless, John Smith assumes the role of King Lear, and then he loses himself in King Lear. He forgets that he is John Smith and seems to become King Lear. Now, how much distance is there between King Lear and John Smith? There's no distance. They're the same person. It is John Smith himself who has assumed the thoughts and feelings of King Lear. They are his own creativity. All there is to King Lear is the creativity of John Smith. But John Smith loses himself in his own creativity and at that moment seems to become King Lear. And then King Lear seems to have to take a journey back to John Smith. Of course, there is no journey to take because there is no distance between King Lear and John Smith. King Lear just has to recognize who he essentially is. The John Smith has to recognize himself. Until that moment of recognition, King Lear feels that he is taking the journey. At the moment of recognition, it is John Smith that has the recognition, I am John Smith. So basically, the attention itself, it's a modulation. It's a coloring. Not the object, I mean, I don't want to speak. The processing of the attention is... You see, the very word attention suggests that there is a subject of experience and there is an object. Forget about attention. That the use of the word attention belongs to an early stage of our understanding when we still think there is a subject of experience, me, awareness, and there are the objects of experience, thoughts, sensations, and perceptions. In relation to that belief, attention is what joins the subject to the object. And that's valid at a certain stage of understanding. But now we've understood there is no distance or distance between the subject and the object. There's no question of stretching the subject towards the object. There's no distance between John Smith and King Lear. The other way around is to bring the object back to the... Well, we don't even bring the object back to awareness, although it is valid as a certain stage to say that because the object was never at a distance from awareness in the first place. If we start with our actual experience, what is the primary element of experience? Consciousness. Now let's start with consciousness. Let's not start with thoughts, feelings, activities, and relationships. Let's start with what is primary in experience, consciousness. Start there and stay there. Now, does any experience ever take place at a distance from consciousness? No. The perception of this room, for instance, how close to consciousness or the knowing of it is the perception of this room. There's no question of having to bring the perception close to consciousness because it never left consciousness in the first place. No experience ever takes place at a distance from consciousness or the knowing of it. So forget about attention. Forget about giving the attention to an object. Forget about returning to awareness. Start once you have explored your experience as you have and you've come to the understanding of yourself as consciousness, you can abandon all those early pathways. Start with consciousness and stay as consciousness and see that all that you ever experience is a coloring of or the activity of yourself. So my question is irrelevant. Well, it's undermined by your deeper understanding. Yes, it's not at an earlier stage of exploration. It would be relevant to speak of attention. I explored that. But you've explored it. The model of the subject giving attention to an object, that exploration has done its job and it's now hindering you. You feel, I have to hold on to that old formulation. Something that I must be missing because... It no longer... It's now a formulation that at one stage helped your understanding because it made a distinction between the subject and the object. It drew attention to the subject of experience. That has done its job now. You have to abandon the whole model because it would now hinder you. Yes. It's the thorn that is used to remove a thorn. Once the second thorn has removed the first thorn, you have to throw both thorns away. Sure. So, thank you. I'm not going to ask what's the next thorn. I will soon discover. You're absolutely right. The teaching could be said to be a series of thorns, each one a little subtler than the previous one. Just when we think, oh, I can throw that old thorn away now. The one I've got now is much more refined. I don't find the thorn for the moment. You'll be throwing that one away as well. Eventually, we don't need any more thorns. They've done their work. We don't need any more models or practices. We go on and on and on, refining and refining and refining until this investigation leaves us established in our true nature. Thank you.