Posting some articles from a few authors, not necessarily
Buddhist but talks about some important insights into the nature of
consciousness.
Rupert Spira -
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.
-----------------
90) Is The Witness Separate From The Witnessed? (OASG
101)
Dear Rupert,
The recognition of Consciousness as myself seems to have
limited value....However, even if I can continuously watch from
this position of consciousness as witness, it seems a passive
position and a potential source of frustration from being stuck on
this single channel (analogy to tv). If I prefer to experience
something different, I seemingly have no ability to carry out
actions towards this preference, as I'm simply a watcher.
I must be misunderstanding something....I realize that I have
set-up a new separate entity -- the witness -- "behind" my
experience...I acknowledge this, but that's where I seem to be
stuck.
Best wishes,
James
Dear James,
It is not so much a misunderstanding as a partial understanding.
You have seen that it is 'I,' Consciousness, that witnesses the
mind, body and world, rather than your previous understanding that
'I,' the body/mind, witnesses the world.
This understanding is, as it were, a half-way house between the
belief that we are a body/mind and the experiential understanding
that we are unlimited, unlocated Presence which is at once the
source and substance of all things.
The watcher that you refer to is still, as you rightly observe, a
separate entity. However, such an entity must be on the 'watched,'
not the 'watching' side of experience, because as an entity it
must, by definition, have observable (watchable)
characteristics.
See in this way that whatever it is that is 'watching' cannot by
itself have any 'watchable' characteristics. So, once it is clear
to you that you are this watching Consciousness see if there is
anything in your experience to validate the belief that it is
limited or located.
Take any thought, image, sensation or perception and ask yourself
if there is any distance between the thought, image, sensation or
perception and Consciousness itself. See in this way that all
experience is equally intimate. Nothing is any closer or further
away from 'that which knows it' than anything else.
Now go more deeply into every thought, image, sensation or
perception and see if you can find any substance there other than
Consciousness itself.
In other words, as we go more deeply into our experience, we find
that this watching or knowing Presence that stands, as it were, in
the background of all experience is, at the same time, the
foreground, the very substance of that experience.
As the background it is independent, impartial, untouchable,
unmovable, unchangeable and indifferent, but as the foreground it
is the very substance of experience. As such it is known as
love.
Or we might say that as peace we are the background of experience
whilst as love we are the heart of experience.
As such there is no question of being frustrated because of the
inability to 'change channels.' Such a frustration would require
one to imagine oneself as a separate entity that is apart from
experience with the potential to change or manipulate it to suit
such an entity.
In the absence of such an entity there is an absence of
frustration. However, this doesn't mean that we are simply passive
- that would be an inverted version of the same.
Rather everything is seen as an expression of the freedom of the
totality, and our self is known as the very substance of that
totality, simultaneously the knowing of it, the being of it and the
loving of it.
With kind regards,
Rupert