I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this but since I'm working on non-dual awareness meditations, and meditations pertaining to non-self, I thought this may the closest to what my question is about.

Is witnessing mind okay to witness during meditation? Or is the object to simply be in awareness?

I also find that while witnessing, I begin to witness whatever it is that is also, witnessing; sort of like a dual witnessing. It feels a bit like ego, but it also feels like something else entirely. It's hard to explain, but does anyone know, and/or would be able to shed some light on what it may be that I'm experiencing? Am I on track? Or am I missing something entirely?

Thanks...

I know this is an old post, but it is a very basic and useful question, none the less.

First of all, formal meditation practice is a temporary expedient.  What is being practiced?  Observing mind, whatever is there is observed without arousing the human mentality (any further).  Since observation's activity is the human mentality already, it would hardly do to create minds on top of minds where there are none to begin with.

Why?  To develop the habit of a permanent subtle concentration observing mind.

Just observe the mind anytime, at all times.  It does not require a particular posture.  It really does not matter at all outside of the will to observe the human mentality.

Of course, observing mind in stillness and during activities is just a device in itself.  A very effective device.

One just uses witnessing the mind without following its contents to rest the mind on itself in order to develop the basis for simply being in a state of independent awareness at all times.  This is the benefit of observing the mind.  This is so because the human mentality is unable to function independently by the force of habitual reliance on externals to prop itself up.  This is so because the identity of the human mentality is falsely in control of the organism that is going to die, and it exists only by comparing itself to objects it considers not its original being.

Some people use formal meditation to relax, or to quiet the human mentality, but this is just a method of comfort, not the device of refining away the artificial identity of the human mentality to arrive at real human being, independent of objects of thought, completely awake.

Witnessing witnessing is a perversion of the practice of observing mind developed by the authentic teachings.  Do not let this develop further.  If this occurs, just take a break and start again later until fatigue set in.

As soon as one can observe mind in the midst of situations without following its stream unawares, one should hasten to do so.  Silent sitting is suitable for rank beginners.  Real practice develops in the midst of ordinary situations.  Formal meditation practice is a temporary expedient.

howdy,
here is a link to a practice on this subject that is pretty cool.  it is called "Awareness Watching Awareness"

http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/awa_instructions.htm

whirled peas

tom

As Thusness wrote in DhO in 2009:



“Hi Gary,

It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in this forum, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path. I am quite new here so I may be wrong.

My take is that you are adopting a gradual approach yet you are experiencing something very significant in the direct path, that is, the ‘Watcher’. As what Kenneth said, “You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.” But what Kenneth said would require you to be awaken to this ‘I’. It requires you to have the ‘eureka!’ sort of realization. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this ‘I’.

On the other hand, what that is described by Yabaxoule is a gradual approach and therefore there is downplaying of the ‘I AM’. You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness.

Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you.

It is necessary not to grasp meditation methods or take them as final realization so that one can just use them as a way back home.

In other words, one doesn't seek these as an end in and of themselves at any time, nor does one use the effect of concentration in isolation— otherwise there will be no insight.  Stopping and seeing, concentration and insight, gradual and sudden are one without beginning.

As for gradual and sudden, in use they constitute a pair and should not be set up in terms of intellectualism to denote separate paths.

Learning to meditate in quiet seclusion is a temporary expedient.

As for effective meditation per se, an ancient worthy once said that only after seeing essence for one's self is one able to arrive at the proper recognition of where to rest the mind.

It is not that meditation should be dispensed with after sudden realization.

Deci Belle's response seems spot on. I do not claim to have attained that level of formlessness.

My initial reaction to the question was based upon my own predilections...namely, the two-self mind.  This is something that those who have what is considered 'dual personalities' or 'multiple personalities' will deal with - this sense of another 'other' watching. I have personally labeled this 'other' as Kundalini. It appears often in the yogic literature, that there is a separate self, known as Shakti, which awakens and acts as a transformative agent in the field of awareness and ego. In the traditional literature, the goal was to unify the Shakti (prakriti) with the Shiva (self) - resulting in Shiv-Shakti union.

There do seem to be correlates in western science, especially as concerns right/left hemispheres. 

The act of separating oneself into multiple selves is commonplace and thus is of interest.

I believe that Deci Belle's 'method' transcends the dualistic approach and directly invites unity without seeing difference.

The yogic view starts with the dualistic view and ends in non dualism.

Both have merit.

I think it depends on approach.

If one is capable of directly transcending duality, this seems more concrete and less prone to delusion.

If one is hooked on the 'need' for dualism, perhaps due to feeling adrift, lonely, needing God, etc. then the other approach is fine too.

I cannot conjecture that one is better than the other.

In Vajrayana practices, one seeks this same unity through Vajrasattva and yab yum.

The starting point is seeing in duality (male/female, self/other, etc.), then removing the dualistic view through tantrik union of polar opposites.

I hesitantly assume that Deci Belle has already achieved union of polar opposites...this is based on observation of the writings over a years worth of study of the material.

I too seek this union, but I am still in the later stages of seeing self/other...

I do practice nonattachment to end-goals, because I do not want to miss out on the adventure. 

What I mean is that ends do not justify the means...this seems petty to me. I like the story. To be in a rush seems lacking tact, and born out of fear and attachment, thinking that one might 'not make it.'  

Roshi Kapleau said: 'If you do not die before you die, when you die, you still won't die."

The meaning is obvious - do you fear death? Do you fear that you will not make it? There is no rush in the bosom of Eternity.

All things come to those who wait.

As far as the witnessing mind which witnesses yet another witnessing mind, these are just stories that are temporary, yet perhaps necessary to the pathwalker.

There is no shame in seeing double, even if it be illusion. When the time comes, you can take off your horse blinders by allowing your assumed self to disappear into its original state of non existence. When there is no one to witness, you are already there.

Choose your path not based on fear, but calmly approach the zenith of the illusion of self, knowing full well that there is no damage done. Do you fear suffering? This is Samsara. When you do not fear Samsara, this is Nirvana. Two sides of a single coin, both ultimately available to you right here, right now.

What else is there than these games that we have played for forever and a day?

Are you scared to mess up?

Don't worry about it.

The calmness gained by letting go is a forward strike against the backwards looking illusion, i.e. the reification of the little self.

Everything I say is ultimately meaningless, yet you will also find meaning in it.

This is the realm of thumbs not touching, yet not not touching.