Something "underneath" sensation, thoughts?

last SG · 2012-01-19T16:33:19+00:00

Yes, I have no idea on vijnanavadin but a quick read on the subject revealed the following :a. Vijnanavada has its basis in the Mandukya Upanishad.b. Buddhis...

Jui SG

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?

An Eternal Now SG

Let go of all inference and doubts or any uncertain understandings… Let the waves of discursive thoughts settle. Then look at what is undeniably present in the gap between two thoughts without any doubts, with utter certainty. Discover what I call the “Certainty of Being”

Self-inquiry is also very effective if you are so inclined.

SevenEleven SG

I would think that, that witnessing the sensation is the “AWARENESS” being more pronounce as one mediation progress

Dharmadhatu SG

Trust your direct experience. Just don't trust your interpretations.

simpo_ SG

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.

An Eternal Now SG

Jui you are entering the first phase but realization has not arisen and if you contemplate further it will lead to the I AM realization.

Can help me copy paste this article here, hard to do from phone:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/...

An Eternal Now SG

Haha simpo posted what I wanted to post before I do (a lot of problems surfing and navigating from phone)

Jui SG

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.

Pegembara SG

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

An Eternal Now SG

Pegembara, what Buddha is saying is different from what Rupert is saying. Rupert is describing nondual, Buddha is describing dependent origination. Nondual and anatta is impt but not the same as D.O. Its the difference between stage 4 and stage 6 of thusness seven stages: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/...

P.s. Buddha in pali canon only teaches stage 5 and 6. If you understand 5 (anatta) properly, nondual is already implicit. As for I AM, buddha teaches it as “monks the mind is luminous”, but does not reify it as a self.

Pegembara SG

[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.

Sgforumposter SG

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.

Jui SG

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?

An Eternal Now SG

＠pegambara: no, consciousness is not a knower, it is an act of knowing without a subject/object division. That act of knowing dependently originates based on mental factors like attention, and also your sense faculty and sense object.

In seeing there is just the experience of sight, colours, shapes and forms, no seer. But that experience dependently originates. That experience is a mental arising – like all skandhas except rupa.

Dharmadhatu SG

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)

simpo_ SG

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

Fugazzi SG

Jui,
Agree u are trapped, disagree u are trapped!

Jui SG

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.

Fugazzi SG

Jui

I have no idea what to disagree or agree on…- where did this ’’idea’’ come from? book, friends, family, add on what comes to ur mind. One can find an enlightened mind, can one find an engligtened heart ? One can find a Buddhist mind, can one find a buddhist heart?
I dont know what u looking for …. and the only thing i can say is that a ’’good’’ start is to KNOW if u are dying to yourself ( dying to your idea of yourself eg a chinese, a student, a parent, Buddhist, Christian or &#8230 Wink Dying to the past in you ( esp psychological cos it is bound to encroach onto the present and colour perception of what is and what is not).
I can go on but space constraints disallows for … Eg Jesus/Buddha or … may have expereineced something, and if I repeat it without experiencing it – it is simply just empty talk. Real it is – only in the mind. However when one has faith it is a different dimension altogether – it is allowing for the unknown to manifest and partaking of what is a paradox .

Weychin SG

Normally, in our daily interactions, we act and feel the role, however, if you are being aware without being indulgent, you watch your action with better dispassionate clarity. Like watching a movie, but you’re the actor! You have developed wa heightened sense of vision acuity, seeing things with vividity. It is a good time to start developing the right view, if you have not done so already.