Hello everyone again. Recently after one of my meditations at night I was just observing my sensations and I realised that there seems to be something "underneath" that's kind of like, witnessing these sensations. As in, there's always this thing "receiving/acknowledging" whatever information my sense organs and mind could come up with. I can't get always "see/sense" it being there, although being in a silent environment helps. But the thing is, I'm not even sure if this is a valid observation. Anyone willing to leave a pointer or two?
Trust your direct experience. Just don't trust your interpretations.
Hi Jui,
You are doing well. This something beneath 'witnessing' is what we call the 'I AM' phase.
However, you have not reach the pure experience of it ... which will appear as all-pervading / borderless.
Will like to stress that this 'witness' as being underneath is a FALSE impression. The witness/awareness is not underneath ... it is embed with the flow of thoughts.
To understand that the witnessing is not underneath, one must progress towards the next phase which is the insight of non-duality or 'no subject-object division'... which should in turn lead to the insight of no-self.
Good luck... May you enter the stream soon.
Thank you everyone for your replies, and thank you Simpo for your wishes. Time to do some meditation!
Rupert Spira on The Provisional Acceptance of The Witness
http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/blog/105/0/
The Question: "You comment that Awareness or consciousness is simply observing the various arisings...as though there are two things: one called Awareness or consciousness and the other called arisings. Why would you posit such a dualistic notion in an effort to share the wisdom of non-dual experience?"
Here is Rupert's answer, worth the time to completely digest.
This
is said to one who believes him or herself to
be a person, located in and as the body, looking
out at a world of objects that are considered to have an
existence that is separate from and independent of their being
known.
The terms in which such a person expresses his or her
question (that is, the belief in a separate
entity, separate bodies, objects made of matter,
a world that has independent existence etc.)
are granted provisional credibility in order that we may proceed
from what, at least appears to this person, seem to be
the facts of the current experience.
In other words we start with the conventional
formulation that ‘I,’ inside the body, am
looking out at an objective and independent
world of objects. This is a position of dualism, that is, ‘I,’ the
body (the subject) am experiencing the world, objects
and others (the object).
From here our attention is drawn to the fact that
the body (sensations) and the mind (thoughts
and images) are in fact experienced in exactly
the same way as the world (perceptions). In
other words, the body/mind is not the subject of experience and the
world the object of experience, but rather the
body/mind/world are all objects of experience.
We then ask what it is that experiences the
body/mind/world. What is it that is referred to
as ‘I?’ It is obviously not the body/mind,
because at this stage the body/mind has been seen to be
the experienced rather than the experiencer.
What then can we say about this perceiving ‘I?’
It cannot have any objective qualities because
any such qualities would, by definition, be
objects and therefore experienced. However, it is
undeniably present and it is undeniable conscious or aware or
knowing. For this reason ‘I’ is sometimes referred to as
Consciousness, Awareness or Knowing Presence.
At this stage the Knowing Presence that I know
myself to be (that is, that knows itself to be)
is conceived of as being ‘nothing,’ ‘empty’ or
‘void’ because it has no objective qualities, and could
be formulated by saying simply, ‘I am nothing.’ It is the
position of the ‘witness.’
This position is still a position of dualism in
that there is still a subject (Knowing Presence)
and an object (the body/mind/world). Yet it is
one step closer to a truer formulation of an
understanding of the true nature of experience than was the
previous formulation in which separate entities were
considered to be existent and real.
If we explore this Knowing Presence that we know
ourselves to be, we discover from direct
experience that there is nothing in our
experience to suggest that it is limited, located, personal, time
or space-bound, caused by or dependent upon anything
other than itself.
Now we look again at the relationship between
Knowing Presence and the objects of the
body/mind/world: How close is the world to our
knowing of it? How close is the world to ‘experiencing?’
We find that there is no distance between them.
They are, so to speak, ‘touching’ one another.
Now we can go deeper. What is our experience of
the border between them, the interface where
they meet or touch? If there was such an
interface, it would be a place where Consciousness ended and the
object began. We find no such place.
Therefore we can now reformulate our experience
based upon our actual experience, not just
theoretical thinking. We can say that objects do
not just appear TO this Knowing Presence but WITHIN
it.
At this
stage Knowing Presence is conceived (based on experience)
more like a vast space in which all the objects of the
body/mind/world are known and experienced to appear and
disappear.
However, it is still a position of dualism, a position in
which this vast knowing space is the subject
and the world is the object that appears within
it.
So we again go
deeply into the experience of the apparent objects
of the body/mind/world and see if we can find in them a substance
that is other than the Presence that knows them or
the space in which they appear.
This is a very experiential exploration that
involves an intimate exploration of sensations
and perceptions and which is difficult to detail
with the written word. It is an exploration in which we come
to FEEL not just understand that the body/mind/world is
made out of the substance that knows them.
However, in this formulation there is still a
reference to a body/mind/world, albeit one known
by and simultaneously made out of Knowing
Presence. It is a position in which the body/mind/world
doesn’t just appear WITHIN Presence but AS Presence.
But what is this body/mind/world that is
appearing as Presence? We explore experience
more deeply again and find that it is this very
Presence itself that takes the shape of the body/mind/world.
Knowing Presence takes the shape of thinking and
appears as the mind. It takes the shape of
sensing and appears as the body. It takes the
shape of perceiving and appears as the world, but never
for a moment does it actually become anything other than
itself.
At this stage we not only know but FEEL that Presence or
Consciousness is all there is. It could be formulated as,
‘I, Consciousness, am everything.’ At the same
time we recognise that this has in fact always
been the case although it seemed not to be known
previously.
So we
have moved from a position in which we thought and felt that
‘I’ am something (a body/mind) to a position in which we
recognised our true nature of Knowing and Being
(Presence) and which we expressed as ‘I,
Consciousness, am nothing.’ And we finally come to
the feeling/understanding that I, Consciousness, am not just the
witness, the knower or experiencer of all things,
but am also simultaneously their substance. In
other words, ‘I, Consciousness am everything.’
Even this is to say too much, for what is this
‘everything’ that is referred to? Language
collapses here. Instead of saying ‘Consciousness
is all,’ we should say just ‘Consciousness is.’ But
then what is this Consciousness that is being framed....again it is
to say too much.
To summarize we move from ‘I am something’ to ‘I am
nothing,’ from ‘I am nothing’ to ‘I am
everything’ and from ‘I am everything to
‘I,I,I....’
We fall silent here.
As we abide knowingly as this Knowing Presence we
discover that it is not a void, an emptiness.
Rather it is the fullness of Love. In other
words, Love is the substance of all things.
The movement in understanding from ‘I am
something’ to ‘I am nothing’ could be called the
Path of Wisdom or Discrimination.
The movement in understanding from ‘I am nothing’
to ‘I am everything’ could be called the Path
of Love.
The abidance
in/as this Love is simply to abide as the Self that we
are and that we know ourselves to be. Love is known to be the
substance of every appearance and to be solely
present throughout all the apparent stages of
its revelation. It is the origin, the substance
and the goal of our enquiry.
Ed: Amen, Rupert.
This position is still a position of dualism in that there is still a subject (Knowing Presence) and an object (the body/mind/world). Yet it is one step closer to a truer formulation of an understanding of the true nature of experience than was the previous formulation in which separate entities were considered to be existent and real.
If we explore this Knowing Presence that we know ourselves to be, we discover from direct experience that there is nothing in our experience to suggest that it is limited, located, personal, time or space-bound, caused by or dependent upon anything other than itself.
Now we look again at the relationship between Knowing Presence and the objects of the body/mind/world: How close is the world to our knowing of it? How close is the world to ‘experiencing?’
We find that there is no distance between them. They are, so to speak, ‘touching’ one another.
"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.
"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html
[This position is still a position of dualism in that there is still a subject (Knowing Presence) and an object (the body/mind/world). Yet it is one step closer to a truer formulation of an understanding of the true nature of experience than was the previous formulation in which separate entities were considered to be existent and real.]
This reads to me as, there is the knower which stands apart from the known (body-mind/nama-rupa), an as yet incomplete insight.
Eg. I am sitting. When I am preoocupied with my thoughts, there is no awareness of sitting. "I" am literally not sitting until "I" bring my attention to sitting. So it literally is body sits but only when awareness of that fact occurs that the thought "I am sitting" appears. It is even more obvious with swallowing. Swallowing is an unconscious act until one's awareness engages and turns it to "I am swallowing" as is breathing.
On the other hand when I put my awareness on say sounds of a bell. The sound comes and goes. Even though I am still listening, there is no experience of sound. Awareness/vinnana needs and object/namarupa for an experience to occur. Then comes the sense media : experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, body sensations and mental world. Vinnana paccaya namarupa; namarupa paccaya salayatanam.
Without this awareness/vinnana there is no experience of sights, sounds etc and vice versa. Both are codependent and there is actually no knower apart from the experience like sheaves of reeds.
Originally posted by Jui:Hello everyone again. Recently after one of my meditations at night I was just observing my sensations and I realised that there seems to be something "underneath" that's kind of like, witnessing these sensations. As in, there's always this thing "receiving/acknowledging" whatever information my sense organs and mind could come up with. I can't get always "see/sense" it being there, although being in a silent environment helps. But the thing is, I'm not even sure if this is a valid observation. Anyone willing to leave a pointer or two?
Aiyoyo ! ....so many complicated replies ;-) .
First off, you must remember that mind objects are considered as the 6th sense objects. So what feeds into your conscousness come from your 5 physical senses and the mental sense.
Our meta-congnitive ability allows us to be aware of all that flows pass our mindstream. If what is cognised or meta-cognised is responding then your mind is projecting onto the mind's tapestry. This is a well-known psychological phenomena.
Relax....meditation is not for you...try yoga and breath work.
Thank you for your advice Sgforumerposter. I don't quite understand your second paragraph though, so this "meta-congnitive ability" is essentially the awareness? What does it mean by "cognised or meta-cognised is responding" ? Sometimes I wonder if my poor command of english and abstract thinking is stopping me from understanding these concepts.
Also, can you elaborate on what you mean by breath work? The only yoga I know of is the kind you do in CCs and gyms also. Not sure if that's the kind you mean. And if you don't mind, may I know how you came to the conclusion that meditation is not for me?
Hi jui,
In my own experience, sit-down meditation is very important. It allows me to drop the thoughts / concepts sufficiently to see with much greater clarity.
Poor English will not stop you from understanding the concepts in Dharma, as most of them are very intuitive. Based on your own experience.
But you need to understand the concepts clearly and make sure you check up the terminologies properly and understand them clearly. I had quite abit of problems with the terms used on this forum too.
Personally, I like writings that are very clear and direct instead of fudging up the words (usually due to their own lack of clarity)
Hi Jui,
I disagree with Sgforumposter's advice...
Meditation is very important... and you are doing fine... please continue... but also (if you have not done so)... may want to also incoorporate walking meditation as well.
Regards
Thank you for your advices Dharmadhatu and simpo, haven't really done walking meditation before I guess, mostly when I do it, it's when I take long walks for lunch and I just note the sensations from the foot. Of course since it's outdoors, I do have to be mindful of people so probably not the most ideal way to be doing it. Don't see a big problem with sitting down meditation, and my concentration's bad anyway, so it's something I should work to improve.
Fugazzi: Thanks but I have no idea what to disagree or agree on...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so it's been a while since I've posted on what I've "seen", so I guess I should give an update. I'm actually quite concerned that I might have just done a good job bluffing myself into believing I've seen something, that I just happened to suddenly, luckily, conceptualized the whole thing into something that, without further probing from people who know better, might actually pass for the real thing. So I'm hoping all the kind people here can take a look and see if this is a big farce after all, or if I'm right, can kindly give some more directions. Certainly, if I'm really on the path, it's not a realization.
Right now, whenever I'm mindful, this awareness/witnessing will be felt. An hour ago, I was actually wondering if this awareness and mindfulness are actually tied together, but I guess I need to observe more before I can know for myself. Certainly though, throughout the day mindfulness switches on and off, just that whenever I "looked", this awareness/witnessing is there, being the centre of my sensations.
In a way, I guess I can describe it as an unchanging thing, because it seems like whatever happens to the senses never actually touches this center. It's like your friend tells you he twisted an ankle. You'll probably feel for him, but that ankle pain doesn't ever hurt you personally. I'm not sure if the famous mirror analogy should be used here, but at this point this awareness does kind of feel like a mirror. Acknowledging (reflecting?) whatever happens to be passing by, but it's own nature is never affected.
Although, the fact that at times I can feel bothered by this unclear state I'm in probably means something I'm missing.
If I were to answer the koan "who am I" right now, my answer would be to express this awareness, which doesn't feel like it ever changes, which feels like some kind of boss that sits separate from all his employees (i.e. the senses, the mind), which is ever so present. Perhaps because of my strong belief in anatta (alas, not a realization!), I'm not interested in calling this a "me" or "I", but the simplest way to answer would be "I am". Just I am, anything tagged behind is missing the point since sitting, standing, looking, hearing, touching has nothing to do with this "I".
...Or maybe I'm just deluded?
Trying to answer "what is my original face before my parents were born" still doesn't yield an answer, maybe because there's a time aspect that I still cannot see, hopefully.
The thing is, this honestly is not much of a difference from when I didn't feel this extra, uh, thing. The best example that I can give right now, is if I didn't know there exists a shade of red called vermillion, and I've always had a piece of paper coloured in red and vermillion. Then one day, someone told me about this shade and lo and behold, something extra pops out, I suddenly have 2 colours on this piece of paper, nevermind that it's been there all along. So there's not much of great joy nor surge in energy. Certainly, the paragraph from Thusness's 7 stages makes me doubt if I've got anything real at all:
"At that moment of realization, I experience tremendous flow of energy being released. It is as if life is expressing itself through my body and I am merely nothing but this expression. However at that point in time, I am still unable to fully understand what this experience is and how I have misunderstood its nature."
Mmm... nope.
Well, apologies for this long post that *might* actually turn out pointless. Many thanks to anyone who'll take their time to go through this :) . Hopefully I can get some things right.
Hi Jui,
To cognise basically to perceive and understand. To cognise you need to interpret.
Metacognition is our ability to "know" that we are cognising. As I had said it is awareness as opposed to concentration. It is this ability that will open up our mindstream whereby insights will arise.
Meditation is as varied as there are religion. There is no one meditation that will fit all people. Different personalities will benefit from different kind of meditation.
People had been known to literally lose their mind while attending vipassana or meditation session.
A person with a lot of thoughts will benefit from some form of dynamic meditation where the object of concentration is deliberately moved in a regular pattern. Yoga and breathwork- can be qigong will be benefitial.
A person with thoughts that move in some fixed pattern and this pattern gets REPEATED will, after a while find themselves projecting onto the images they create in their mind. It is actually quite normal. In this regard yoga, taichi and breathwork will be benefitial.
A person with thoughts that are linked in a single train of thought will soon arrive at insight. This is known as the access stage. This is normally accompanied by mild bliss.
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:Hi Jui,
To cognise basically to perceive and understand. To cognise you need to interpret.
Metacognition is our ability to "know" that we are cognising. As I had said it is awareness as opposed to concentration. It is this ability that will open up our mindstream whereby insights will arise.
Meditation is as varied as there are religion. There is no one meditation that will fit all people. Different personalities will benefit from different kind of meditation.
People had been known to literally lose their mind while attending vipassana or meditation session.
A person with a lot of thoughts will benefit from some form of dynamic meditation where the object of concentration is deliberately moved in a regular pattern. Yoga and breathwork- can be qigong will be benefitial.
A person with thoughts that move in some fixed pattern and this pattern gets REPEATED will, after a while find themselves projecting onto the images they create in their mind. It is actually quite normal. In this regard yoga, taichi and breathwork will be benefitial.
A person with thoughts that are linked in a single train of thought will soon arrive at insight. This is known as the access stage. This is normally accompanied by mild bliss.
Metacognition is our ability to "know" that we are cognising. As I had said it is awareness as opposed to concentration. It is this ability that will open up our mindstream whereby insights will arise.
The first moment of cognition is already the first awareness, the first flash of knowledge, there is no need for another knower to be present. Such ‘knower’ does not exist in Buddhism. By the way, how does opening up of our mindstream cause the insight to arise? Are you referring to insight into impermanence, no-self, stress and suffering or something else?
By the way, what I gather of the definition of metacognition from the internet by a William Peirce is as follows:
"In general, metacognition is thinking about thinking. More specifically, Taylor (1999) defines metacognition as “an appreciation of what one already knows, together with a correct apprehension of the learning task and what knowledge and skills it requires, combined with the agility to make correct inferences about how to apply one’s strategic knowledge to a particular situation, and to do so efficiently and reliably."…….
People had been known to literally lose their mind while attending vipassana or meditation session.
This is the first time I have heard of people losing their mind while attending vipassana meditation session. It would be good if you can substantial your statement with some evident relating to such real life happening.
A person with a lot of thoughts will benefit from some form of dynamic meditation.
The Buddhist has the equivalent of using Koans here.
A person with thoughts that move in some fixed pattern and this pattern gets REPEATED will, after a while find themselves projecting onto the images they create in their mind.
Samadhi meditation, where the focus of concentration is on a particular object such as in kasina meditation.
A person with thoughts that are linked in a single train of thought will soon arrive at insight. This is known as the access stage. This is normally accompanied by mild bliss.
Access concentration accompanied by mild bliss is just a precondition to the first of the four stages of Absorption concentration, nowhere near to arriving at insight.