Author: garyrh
Forum: Dharma Overground Discussion Forum

My experience with walking meditation is that the mind has a "watcher" that periodically checks if it is still on the object. In everyday activities the watcher presents in varying degrees sometimes in the fore othertimes quite subtley. in hard jhana I am not aware of any watcher.

My question is, is this watcher always there and ones awareness is shifting or does the watcher just "pop up" when required? Is this watcher that periodically pops or that one becomes aware of the same as or part of the illusionary self?

Nice! Very important to find out. Let the watcher watch itself. Let the contents of the mind be and just investigate this sense of watching. Turn the light around. You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.

Kenneth

there's an online book on "awareness watching awareness" here: http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.aspx

xsurf had previously referenced chapter 7 (practice instructions) in this thread:
http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/1196669/Objects+of+focus

This is a very, very key thing in my experience. Keep at it! Very worthwhile things will come if you just stick with this line of inquiry.

Gary,

A few other pointers for your inquiry: the watcher is itself a formation, a compounded phenomenon that is as empty, transient and causal as the rest. In this case, hone in on the transient & causal nature of the watcher. Can the watcher be broken down into other component parts? When does the watcher arise (what causes it to become known, and what caused that cause)? Do you think that the watcher exists in some other-dimensional subspace when you are not aware of it, or is it simply gone when it is not being attended to? If it disappears when not being noticed, what does this imply?

Trent

Trent, this is not the practice I would recommend to Gary in this context, but I'm glad you brought it up as it gives us a chance to distinguish two techniques. Direct, or non-dual teachings are not to be seen as a subset of vipassana. It's best to do one or the other. Awareness is irreducible; to attempt to reduce it via vipassana is to posit some extra point of view that is capable of standing aside and evaluating the rest. There's no need to do that.

The non-dual practice is to simply dwell as the watcher, which is to say let awareness know itself. This will eventually collapse into non-duality of its own accord, but it can't be forced. In other words, among traditions that acknowledge both kinds of practice, dwelling as the "I AM" is considered a higher, more efficient practice than vipassana. To attempt to deconstruct non-duality using vipassana would be going in circles at best and a step backwards at worst. I recommend that people master both vipassana and the non-dual technique, and do each as appropriate. But my rule of thumb is that one should do non-dual practice when possible, and when it isn't possible to do non-dual practice, do vipassana. In Tibetan practice, there is a clear hierarchy of techniques, with non-dual practices being favored over vipassana or samatha. I believe this is also the case in Zen, but hopefully Gozen will jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong.

My advice to Gary is to inquire into the nature of the watcher by dwelling as the watcher.

This is good advice from Kenneth, and an accurate portrayal of the Zen attitude.

The non-dual practice approach is the highest. But there are moments when we need something of less "pure" potency. These moments occur most often when we've been dealing with many life-level challenges. For those of us who are not monks and who hold down regular jobs, have families, and so forth, there will be times when our attention has been scattered by multiple simultaneous demands. That multiplicity strains our non-duality. "The world is too much with us" as the saying goes.

Go back, then, to techniques of concentration that focus on more limited, well-defined objects than "awareness itself." Focus on the breath, for example. Rebuild your attention. Calm your mood. Generate a bit of bliss. Then you can turn again to the choiceless awareness.

Author: garyrh

@joriki: the online book you gave the reference to got me sorted out the watcher and awareness. The author is quite a salesman but I suspect his writings on this to be correct.
@cmarti Thanks for the encouragement.
@Yabaxoule: Thanks for the direction here. More on this in my comment to Kenneth.

@Kenneth: What you have said here with what Trent said is so sirendipitous. I interpreted Trent to be saying the watcher was to be decontructed not awareness. Separating the watcher from awareness may not be right but this along with other things got me thinking... When I was introduce to the maps with MCTB I assumed I was starting at the start, therefore when I was aware of thoughts coming and going not thinking I could place myself beyond A&P I figured awareness as subtle background thought. I know this will sound stupid but I think I have might have assume awareness for subtle thought and have been trying to decontruct it for something that is not there. What might have happened is the awareness of individual thoughts is natural enough for me whereby it is no longer "special" and MCTB made each nana's and A&P such a special insight or event. This means that awareness is that "simple" thing between the thoughts that I am quite "aware" of.
Now I definitely don't want to overestimate where I am in practice so I might keep these ideas to myself (haha) and not identify too much with them and see how things mature into the future. Any advice on how I could evaluate this that would be great.
I seem to have a leaning to non-dual practice so I will consider my main focus in the next few days.

I assume it is okay to do vispassana and non-dual just not vipassana on non dual awareness, is this correct?

Author: ByPasser

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.

Awakening to the ‘Watcher’ will at the same time ‘open’ the ‘eye of immediacy’; that is, it is the capacity to immediately penetrate discursive thoughts and sense, feel, perceive without intermediary the perceived. It is a kind of direct knowing. You must be deeply aware of this “direct without intermediary” sort of perception -- too direct to have subject-object gap, too short to have time, too simple to have thoughts. It is the ‘eye’ that can see the whole of ‘sound’ by being ‘sound’. It is the same ‘eye’ that is required when doing vipassana, that is, being ‘bare’. Be it non-dual or vipassana, both require the opening of this 'eye of immediacy'.

Author: garyrh

ByPasser there is a lot in what you have said and I thank you. I would like to relate an experience on "direct without intermediary" to check that I am not over simplifying things.

In walking meditation the "I" appears to place or make sense of the sensory perception. This involves a body image for example foot sensations are percived to be at the foot, movement is percieved in realation to the previous position. Once in walking meditation I had the body disappear so there was just the feet touch sensations belonging and going nowhere. Does this describe direct without intermediary?

[edit] I think I should add I think the body's disappearence was because the whole awareness field was taken up by the walking sensations, due to concentration on the sensations, the body image had no opportunity to arise.

Thanks

Author: Dan_K

@kenneth

Will nondual practice result in path/fruition? So far I have heard you refer to mainly no-dog/simplest thing when discussing nondual practice. Does nondual practice follow the 'rules' of the path of insight?
Also, when I do vipassana focused on the characteristic of anatta it is much like the watcher. What is the difference?

Author: garyrh

Hi Dan,
Kenneth might correct me but the watcher equates with awareness and not the "no self". So the non dual practice is to turn awareness on it self , "not self" can not do this because it does not have the quality of knowing.

Fundamentally, all that needs to be done is for the mind to comprehend reality in a way that shows clearly the true face of the manifestation, or some part of that manifestation that was previously misunderstood. This may not be a good route for most, but all that needs to be done is to take a question, sit with it, and somehow figure it out/see it through experience. If that comes via dissecting reality via Vipassana, then that is great. If it comes by directly observing via non-dual practices, that is great too. It is my opinion that your mind will intuit the best approach for each question it has to solve, and it will know which technique is working for that very moment. I do not think they are in conflict at all, they can be used simultaneously, in alternating fashion, or in a style that limits practice to just one of these. I prefer the first two, and so I offer thoughts on those; it's just more info for all those who may want it.

Trent

Author: ByPasser

Yes Gary, what you said is correct. It is only a matter of depth and intensity, ie, how clear, how vivid, how real, how pristine the arising and passing sensations are when compared to the “I AM”. In the case of “I AM”, it is so clear, so real and so pristine that it burns away all traces of doubts. Absolutely certain, still and thoughtless that even Buddha is unable to shake the practitioner from this direct Realization of “I-ness”.

By the way, there should not be any ‘image’ in whatever experienced, thus, direct.

With regards to the “body's disappearance” that you mentioned, it relates to an experience called the “mind-body drop”. There are few more important points that you may want to take note:

1. It is not just due to “concentration on the sensations, the body image had no opportunity to arise”, the insight that mind and body are mere constructs must also arise and the disappearance is also the result of dissolving of these constructs.
2. Mind-body drop must also come with a sense of lightness. In the first few glimpses, you will also feel weightless and when the experience becomes clearer, you will also realize the “weight” of these constructs.
3. From the constructs, you may also want to explore further what happen when the constructs of “in/out” disappears.

Lastly the practice of self enquiry is not without danger. A practitioner can also be led into a state of utter confusions when exploring the ‘I’ through mere analytical process. So practice with care.

Hi Dan,

I think there is good reason to believe that even someone who does exclusively non-dual practice will go through the Progress of Insight. They may not have the conceptual framework or vocabulary to talk about it in a way that would resonate with Mahasi Buddhists, but I believe that what we think of as enlightenment is directly correlated with the development of the psychic anatomy, i.e. the chakras and energy channels within the body/mind. Both non-dual and vipassana practices accomplish this.

2) Any kind of investigation of phenomena precludes non-dual practice (at least in the moment of investigation). You're either doing one or the other. Investigation (vipassana) takes as object the changing phenomena of mind and body and finds the 3 characteristics, including no-self. Vipassana depends upon time. Without time, one could not speak of change. Non-dual practice focuses on that which is prior to the arising of time, i.e. awareness itself. Awareness always looks the same; without time there is no change. It's an important distinction to make, because people who are investigating no-self via vipassana often mistakenly believe that they understand what the advaitists are saying. Not coincidentally, these tend to be the same people who dismiss advaita. In order to understand non-dual practice, you have to embrace it fully, on its own terms. The post by ByPasser, upthread, expresses this well.

Kenneth

Hey Kenneth,

It's really interesting to hear you say this, namely because at one point a couple years ago you had a distinctly different view. I remember you talking about two different kinds of enlightenment: Enlightenment A & Enlightenment B. I posted about it on my blog after our discussion: http://bit.ly/N77zL

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what was involved in your changing your mind on this point?

Also, I'd have to fully agree that one can only understand non-dual practice by doing it. I just spent 3 weeks of retreat doing self-enquiry exclusively (Who am I? & What am I?). It was a radically different experience than the vipassana meditation courses I've done and what you were saying about no-dog and it dissolving into the non-dual makes perfect sense to me now. It didn't as much before. Anyway, thanks...

-Vince

My recent discovery of the no-dog territory led to similar conclusions. It's totally different from vipassana, and it works really well out in the world. This morning, I decided to "take no-dog for a walk" around the campus of my office building. What an experience! This type of practice seems to catalyze depth of insight in a way I had yet to realize. Very cool stuff.

"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. (I am large. I contain multitudes.)"

-Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

:-))

But seriously, I'm glad you asked, and I'll answer in detail as soon as I can. And I'm eager to hear more about your impressions of non-dual practice now and previously, so I hope you will elaborate on this.

Thank you, ByPasser, for your teaching which is wonderfully clear, direct and useful.

If I may, I would like to add a few comments.

I AM: Paradoxically, one feels at the same time that one is both essentially untouched by all phenomena and yet intimately at one with them. As the Upanishad says "Thou are That."

1.a. Body and Mind as Constructs: Another way to look at this is to observe that all compound things -- including one's own body and mind -- are **objects to awareness.** That is to say, from the "fundamental" point of view of primordial awareness, or True Self, even body and mind are **not self.**
2.a. Weightlessness: It is as if the gravity of one's own body has become levity (a small joke here!). The body feels lighter. Instead of being polarized downward due to gravity, one feels polarized upward, as if gravity had lessened, or as if there were some other force at play which counteracts gravity to some degree.
3.a. In/Out Gone: Consciousness without inwardness. Stark embodiment. No boundaries.

Author: garyrh

I do not know how to practice with care, because I do not know the dangers. Also I do not know what analytical process will cause confusion. Is there something I can read on this?

Author: ByPasser

Hi Gozen,

I fully agree with what you said. It is just a casual sharing with Gary as he seems to be experiencing some aspects of the direct path.

To me both gradual and direct path will eventually lead us to the same destination. It is rather the degree of understanding we have on a particular teaching. If we practice wholeheartedly, whatever traditions will lead us to the same goal.

Frankly without re-looking at the basic teachings of Buddhism about the dharma seals and dependent origination, I will be leaving traces in the Absolute. In vipassana, there is the ‘bare attention’ and there is the mindful reminding of impermanence, no self and suffering of the transience. It is a very balance and safe approach.

Like in Zen tradition, different koans were meant for different purposes. The experience derived from the koan “before birth who are you?” is not the same as the Hakuin’s koan of “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” The five categories of koan in Zen ranges from hosshin that give practitioner the first glimpse of ultimate reality to five-ranks that aims to awaken practitioner the spontaneous unity of relative and absolute are meant to prevent leaving traces. (You should be more familiar than me ) My point is when we simply see the Absolute and neglect the relative, that ‘Absolute’ becomes dead and very quickly another ‘dead Absolute construct’ is being created. In whatever case, we can only have a sincere mind, practice diligently and let the mind figures the rest out.

The mind does not know how to liberate itself.
By going beyond its own limits it experiences unwinding.
From deep confusion it drops knowing.
From intense suffering comes releasing.
From complete exhaustion comes resting.
All these go in cycle perpetually repeating,
Till one realizes everything is indeed already liberated,
As spontaneous happening from before beginning.

Author: ByPasser

Hi Gary,

If we merely use the analytical process to understand, we will come to a point that we have no idea whether we exist or not. This is not a good experience and can be very painful but with great doubt also comes great realization, they seem to come together.

Sensing bodily sensation and observing the 3 characteristics will help to counter this 'thought-induced-loop'. So having strong foothold on vipassana will help.

For Zen, I think Gozen will be the right person. If you are interested in Mahamudra, "Essentials of Mahamudra" by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche is a good read.

Vipassana is quite a balance approach and you can use MCTB as a guide. In my opinion, all traditions will lead us to the same destination.

Regards,
ByPasser

Author: Dan_K

Thanks for the response Kenneth, and thanks for the thread Gary, and thanks everyone.
I find this thread to be very helpful. I began spiritual practice just a couple of years ago after reading Ramana and Nisargadatta, after which I said something like, “holy crap these guys are telling us how to get enlightened!” So I would do self-inquiry, witnessing, awareness-watching-awareness, etc. either sitting or just through the course of an ordinary day. While there might be “no-path,” the path that I was on seemed to entail witnessing and witnessing and witnessing until….(profit?).

So after reading MCTB I was like “hey this is much better! There are maps and states and stages and precise instructions!” I pretty much figured it was all the same thing. “Okay, I’ll get stream-entry first, and then self-inquiry will make more sense.” I bet this describes a few other DhO-ers as well. Indeed, vipassana has helped me overcome some of the nagging issues of self-inquiry, such as the thought loops that ByPasser mentioned, expectations, and solidifying the sense of an observer. I was much more aimed at some sort of radical subjectivity before doing vipassana. I heartily applaud Kenneths advice to: “do non-dual practice when possible, and when it isn't possible to do non-dual practice, do vipassana.”

Still, I am very concerned about attaining to at least stream entry before going non-dual because it seems like there would be some “ground” to the practice (or maybe not-ground? Unground?) While the joy of non-dual practice might be its lack of linearity, I really want to get somewhere (which just happens to be the current object of my investigation). It seems to me that much of the questions that I might ask about non-dual practice are sort of antithetical to it (how do I do it? Vs. not-doing. What happens? Vs. nothing changes). The teachings are much more enigmatic, in my opinion.

Author: ByPasser

Ha Gozen, I re-read the post and saw **not self**, I supposed u r referring to anatta then I have to disagree...:-). However I agree with what that u said from the Vedanta (True Self) standpoint. But going into it can make it appears unnecessary complex.

As a summary, I see anatta as understanding the **transience** as Awareness by realizing that there is no observer apart from the observed. Effectively it is referring to the experience of in seeing, only scenery, no seer. In hearing, only sound, no hearer. The experience is quite similar to “Thou are That” except that there is no sinking back to a Source as it is deemed unnecessary. Full comfort is found in resting completely as the transience without even the slightest need to refer back to a source. For the source has always been the manifestation due to its emptiness nature.

All along there is no dust alighting on the Mirror; the dust has always been the Mirror. We fail to recognize the dust as the Mirror when we are attached to a particular speck of dust and call it the ”Mirror”; When a particular speck of dust becomes special, then all other pristine happening that are self-mirroring suddenly appears dusty.

Anything further, we will have to take it private again. :-)

man that is one groovy perspective, thanks for passing by, bypasser.

Author: ByPasser

Thanks Theprisonergreco, I like the "passing by", the transience.

Hi BP,
Yes, this does become rather difficult to talk about in any way that makes sense ;) The difficulty arises from the need to maintain a fine balance when speaking about it and yet to say something useful.

You are certainly correct that the observer and what is observed are not-two. Samsara and Nirvana are one. And you point out something very important when you say that "there is no sinking back to a Source as it is deemed unnecessary." Sinking back to the Source is precisely the temptation of those who seek to escape Samsara rather than understand and embrace it in the manner of the Bodhisattva. This temptation becomes acute after one has realized the Source as something accessible. . . . We can continue this privately!

Hey Vince,

I just looked over the blog entry you linked to and I think it's a good account of what I said to you that day. And although my thoughts about awakening definitely evolve over time (I'm suspicious of people who don't change their minds; sounds like dogma to me), I haven't changed my mind about this particular issue. Development doesn't lead to Awakeness; Awakeness is always already here. The fact that we insist upon not noticing it is another matter. Noticing Awakeness, on the other hand, does lead to development; when you are absorbed in the no-dog, the psychic anatomy builds itself. In addition, it seems likely that someone who is developmentally enlightened will notice what was the case all along, as s/he is a master of noticing subtle things. However, there appear to be arahats who, due to their conditioned belief systems, have no experience of Awakeness as I'm defining it. Here I'm thinking of certain Theravada monks who in my experience have no inkling of what sudden Awakening is.

This idea of multiple awakenings can be taken even further; Tulku Urgyen, in his book Rainbow Painting, talks about several parallel tracks of enlightenment. There is one track for arahats, one for pacheka buddhas, one for boddhisattvas, etc. Each track looks complete from its own perspective, but there is a hierarchical relationship between them. (I'm paraphrasing from memory something I read five years ago, so I hope someone who has a copy of the book will chime in with the exact quote.)