the observer and the observed

[roger]

I have an interesting idea about the relationship between the observer and the observed.

 

J. Krishnamurti says, "The observer is the observed."

 

Yet other teachers teach that they are different.

 

Maybe it's like the question, "Was Harrison Ford Han Solo?"

 

Yes and no.

 

He played the part, but the part was not his true self.

 

The observed is a part we play, but it might not reflect our true nature.

 

But the thing is that it's only when you FIRST see that you ARE the observed (seeing Harrison Ford AS Han Solo), that you can see that you are NOT the observed.

 

I'm not 100% certain about this stuff but it seems like something worth exploring.

[Thunder_Gooch]

Right now you experience reality, and believe what you see and experience to be external to your own mind.

 

 

It's backwards.

 

Really you see only the inside of your own mind.

 

That computer monitor you are looking at isn't a computer monitor at all, it is your own internal mental processes, it exists purely as energy and information inside your neural networks, and that is the only reality it has or ever has had.

 

 

The sum of your total experience, what you see, feel, smell, taste, hear, remember, visualize, verbalize, emotion, intuition, everything...

 

That is just energy and information inside your own neural networks, and that is what you are the energy and information, the experience that is occurring that is you, that is what you are the whole experience.

 

You are only an experience, only energy and information, with no tangible reality to you at all, the world you experience is the same.

 

When you meet another person, you are interacting with interactive 3D hologram created by energy and information inside your own neural networks, you are experiencing yourself, only ever seeing the inside of your own mind.

 

 

This whole world you live in, exists only inside your own mind, only exists as energy and information.

 

If it is a reflection of something outside of your own mind however is up for debate.

Edited September 5, 2013 by More_Pie_Guy

[SriChi]

Salutations to that consciousness which is the source of the apparently distinct threefold divisions of knower, knowledge and known, seer, sight and seen, doer, doing and deed.

 

From Vasistha's Yoga.

 

You are me and I am you - Shpongle

[Jetsun]

Good questions. On the ultimate level the observer and observed are the same thing, yet the mind makes the distinction of this and that in duality, this is the minds job in order to navigate life more effectively, yet the mind is a tool it isn't a direct interpretation of reality because it consists of thoughts and beliefs about life rather than direct perception of life right now.

 

Some teachers teach to separate life further so you create a witness or observer consciousness, I have questioned this myself for some time and my conclusions are that some of them don't know what they are really doing and the others create the observer as a tool in order for you to create some distance from your conditioning and personality structures in order that you can gain some freedom from them and see that the don't define you. But at some point that witness or observer has to be let go of too in order for you to see reality directly. So the teachers who separate things want to eventually bring you to see that the observer and the observed are the same thing, but they don't do it directly they work at loosening your conditioning first.

 

When you were born you were one with everything, even the psychologists admit this is true, then you separated yourself and the world into two, so there is you and the world. Some teachers will then separate you into three: you, the world and the observer of both, to loosen the bonds you created with the ultimate aim to bring you back to one, other teachers will directly introduce you back into one.

[Amina]

To Jetsun,

 

Those who point to the fact that when a child is born he is one with everything is true, but he is unconsciously one with everything, the purpose of evolution is for this child to grow and evolve, first he has to create an identity ( ego image) he becomes self conscious, then his intelligence grows together with the ego to learn how to live in the world, that is in relation to other.

 

This separation you speak of is a natural evolution of human consciousness that should lead to full conscious awareness of who you truly are, then we can speak of conscious awareness of oneness with everything. The state of consciousness of a child is sometimes wrongly viewed as perfect and as something to get back to, but i would disagree Life evolves continuously and so should human consciousness.

[Jetsun]

To Jetsun,

 

Those who point to the fact that when a child is born he is one with everything is true, but he is unconsciously one with everything, the purpose of evolution is for this child to grow and evolve, first he has to create an identity ( ego image) he becomes self conscious, then his intelligence grows together with the ego to learn how to live in the world, that is in relation to other.

 

This separation you speak of is a natural evolution of human consciousness that should lead to full conscious awareness of who you truly are, then we can speak of conscious awareness of oneness with everything. The state of consciousness of a child is sometimes wrongly viewed as perfect and as something to get back to, but i would disagree Life evolves continuously and so should human consciousness.

Yeah I agree with you, the stages of ego formation are needed up to a point, I am not one of those against ego I recognise it has its place and function. A child is one but they are not aware that they are one which is the difference between them and an awakened adult, which is why the process isn't a regression like Freud suggested it was as there is a different clarity of openness rather than an attempted retreat from life.

[Amina]

Hi Jetsun,

 

"Some teachers teach to separate life further so you create a witness or observer consciousness, I have questioned this myself for some time and my conclusions are that some of them don't know what they are really doing and the others create the observer as a tool in order for you to create some distance from your conditioning and personality structures in order that you can gain some freedom from them and see that the don't define you. But at some point that witness or observer has to be let go of too in order for you to see reality directly."

 

"To say that teachers teach to separate life further so you create a witness"

 

The witness is an important step in our evolution and it is absolutely real, it is the individualization of Consciousness within every human being, it is not present from the beginning as some say it is a function of our evolution towards wholeness.

As Nisargadatta said " The witness is the touch of the real within the unreal".

It is not created as a tool, it is 100% real, it is a shift in identity, it enables you to go beyond the mind, the no-mind, but includes the mind and the ego. Abiding as a witness you actually become the witness from what i experience the witness or observer is actually the wrong word as it implies that this witness witnesses something, but in truth the witness just is, it can obviously choose to use the faculty of observing when need arise but it itself does not observe anything, it is perfectly self contained identity, which is you.

 

As the witness becomes fully who you are it surrenders into Consciousness which is the background of all the manifested creation. It merges with consciousness but still retain its individuality. Consciousness needs the witness ( you ) to be "born" so to speak. Most teachers do say that the witness has to be let go of at some stage, but again i disagree, you are the witness, which means you are the individualization of Consciousness , so yes at a certain stage you let go into consciousness and then into what some call the Absolute/Emptiness which is the container of Consciousness and of manifestation, but you remain, otherwise who realizes the Absolute, who says "there is only Emptiness" or " " There is only Consciousness" ( which by the way is not true) there must logically be someone there in the Absolute/Emptiness to say this, and it cannot be the Absolute as the Absolute just is, it is not cognizant of itself or of anything.

 

I would like to point out that these things i share with are just my own understanding that i have received through my teacher, i am still growing in experience and my intelligence too. I am only at the beginning.

[Wayfarer]

Not sure if this will help...the best way I can explain it will seem like a type of evolution but it's not.

 

FIRST STAGE: We have an infant before he or she becomes aware of their self. According to scientists, the test is to put a spot on the forehead of a toddler, put them before a mirror and if they notice the spot should not be there it proves self awareness. Ten animals have also been proved to show self-awareness. Up until this stage an infant has an awareness and the environment around him or her is as though nothing stands out - its all a Something that goes mostly unnoticed until their consciousness becomes greater.

 

SECOND STAGE: We grow aware of self and not-self. We learn to like something but not others and we spend much of our life in one way or other trying to meet the needs of this self, even if that entails helping others. Most of us don't get any further.

 

THIRD STAGE: Is a person who has awakened to SELF or to not-self. They either notice Suchness Presence, suddenly get 'it' from a flash of inspiration e.g. a Koan, or teacher or they realise they cannot locate a self. Various triggers create slightly different experiences of awakening for instance, one might become as trapped in the idea of SELF as they once were of self. Those of a spiritual interest are in second stage, looking towards the third. Yet, here we still have a thought of holiness or selflessness, or emptiness. While we might know Oneness and the object and subject being the same ITness there is still thinking about it, which is not the 'pure state'.

 

FOURTH STAGE: Is a person who has gone beyond thinking about it as they have come to realise that such thoughts distance themselves somehow from the purity of the experience of non-experience. The practice of no-thought can lead to this without having 'awoken'. So the world is not seen with distinct objects however such objects are noticed or else they would be bumped into all the time. Whereas a person at the third stage might think; this tree is Suchness as is that cloud and therefore both are the same; a person in this stage would not think of anything while looking at a cloud. They would be carefree and to some degree thought-free until someone engages with them cognitively. So this is most like the first stage and yet there is subtle difference.

 

Ultimately, these experiences that lead through the various stages are not because we notice our world is created by our mind; it is there whether or not we think. Emptiness and fullness is the same thing. God and not-God is the same thing; so how can there be one or the other? So the original post...For Harrison Ford (Truth) to realise Han Solo (self) is not his true-self he would also lose the idea of there being a Truth. So when what is witnessed is realised as being the same as what witnesses; from that point on there is no thought of either object or subject.

 

If you just stop thinking for a moment, what remains is what is always present, without an idea of their being presence? If we don't think, there can be no ideas

[Intentwielder]

Brother Roger,

 

If I'm not mistaken, Krishnamurti was saying that "the observer should be the subject of observation", not that this is always the case. In other words, I believe he was advocating that very thing to the reader.

 

Another way to say this, (obviously in the meditative context) is "awareness of awareness" or "let that whic looks rest within itself".

 

Awareness is one of the chief components of the consciousness that we are. The usual habit of that consciousness is to focus on one external thing after the next, in succession, in our daily lives. What Krishnamurti was saying, I believe, is that something extraordinary happens when we let our awareness focus upon itself, rather than the various external subjects of the senses.

 

By doing this, something extraordinary does indeed arise...cumulatively greater clarity. A/A = C holds true, in that awareness divided by awareness equals clarity. This meditative focus is particularly powerful when it is engaged in conjunction with the feeling of the third eye, (area of the forehead).

[doc benway]

I have an interesting idea about the relationship between the observer and the observed.

 

J. Krishnamurti says, "The observer is the observed."

 

Yet other teachers teach that they are different.

 

Maybe it's like the question, "Was Harrison Ford Han Solo?"

 

Yes and no.

 

He played the part, but the part was not his true self.

 

The observed is a part we play, but it might not reflect our true nature.

 

But the thing is that it's only when you FIRST see that you ARE the observed (seeing Harrison Ford AS Han Solo), that you can see that you are NOT the observed.

 

I'm not 100% certain about this stuff but it seems like something worth exploring.

 

When Krishnamurti speaks of the observer being the observed, I believe that he is referring to the insight that the 'observer' is simply another thought or thought process that is tagged as the thinker, the doer, and yet is no different from the other thoughts.

It's been a while since I've read him, but that seemed to be a significant focus in his work.

 

Awareness is one of the chief components of the consciousness that we are. The usual habit of that consciousness is to focus on one external thing after the next, in succession, in our daily lives. What Krishnamurti was saying, I believe, is that something extraordinary happens when we let our awareness focus upon itself, rather than the various external subjects of the senses.

Very true, and the other thing that I found particularly stimulating and helpful was his constant admonition for us to look for something beyond what is in the realm of the known, never telling us what else might be there or even if it is possible but it made me look (and I'm still doing it). We may well be saying the same thing although I think there is a subtle variation there.

[Boy]

...

Edited November 3, 2013 by Boy

[hydrogen]

FOURTH STAGE: Is a person who has gone beyond thinking about it as they have come to realise that such thoughts distance themselves somehow from the purity of the experience of non-experience. The practice of no-thought can lead to this without having 'awoken'. So the world is not seen with distinct objects however such objects are noticed or else they would be bumped into all the time. Whereas a person at the third stage might think; this tree is Suchness as is that cloud and therefore both are the same; a person in this stage would not think of anything while looking at a cloud. They would be carefree and to some degree thought-free until someone engages with them cognitively. So this is most like the first stage and yet there is subtle difference.

 

Did you expereince these "stage" yourself? Thanks.

[dwai]

The observer and the observed. Very interesting topic.

 

Who is watching and who is being watched?

imho, it's not very practical to get caught up in unraveling this mystery. One thing that is pertinent however is that the observer realizes that the observed is just a stream of thoughts flowing in a field (varyingly described as a river, a stream, etc) of consciousness.

 

The observer is necessary for the realization that the observed is nothing but a construction...

 

What then happens to the observer? When the observer springs forth during meditation, after a while the "observed" disappears. Then the observer realizes that the emptiness that is left is nothing but itself (the gap between thoughts is the true nature of the observer).

 

my 2 cents worth (for what it's worth)

[Tibetan_Ice]

The observer and the observed. Very interesting topic.

 

Who is watching and who is being watched?

imho, it's not very practical to get caught up in unraveling this mystery. One thing that is pertinent however is that the observer realizes that the observed is just a stream of thoughts flowing in a field (varyingly described as a river, a stream, etc) of consciousness.

 

The observer is necessary for the realization that the observed is nothing but a construction...

 

What then happens to the observer? When the observer springs forth during meditation, after a while the "observed" disappears. Then the observer realizes that the emptiness that is left is nothing but itself (the gap between thoughts is the true nature of the observer).

 

my 2 cents worth (for what it's worth)

Hi Dwai

Somehow I can't believe you've said that.

This mystery is the crux of the matter and what should be examined very closely.

 

In the terminology that is being used here, there is the observed, the observer which conceptualizes, and then that which is aware of the observer and the observed.

 

You say "What then happens to the observer? When the observer springs forth during meditation, after a while the "observed" disappears. Then the observer realizes that the emptiness that is left is nothing but itself (the gap between thoughts is the true nature of the observer)."

 

That observer which you describe is in part the conceptual mind, the "I" thought, for it observes and it 'realizes'. What really happens in what you have described is not quite right. When the observed disappears, there is still the observer observing nothing, or space, or emptiness (emptiness is not a good word because of its underlying meanings which are often misinterpreted). The observer at this point, since, as you've said "realizes" is the conceptual mind, the "I" thought. That too must be dissolved by samadhi, constant attention.

 

According to Nisargadatta, one must go beyond that "I" thought. In Ramana's teachings, his techinque of asking "To whom do these thoughts occur" and "Who am I" are also meant to transcend the "I" thought. In Bon teachings, first you dissolve the observed, then you turn around and dissolve the observer, and the essence lies in what is found beyond.

 

The observer does not exist without an observed. When you go deep enough in self-inquiry, you will find the observed, the observer which conceptualizes, but you will also realize that there is a third party which does not conceptualize, which is blissful, joyful, aware and without bounds that observes the creation and dissolution of both the observed and the observer.

 

That is the key.

 

The gap between thoughts is not the true nature of observer for the observer is just a creation of mind. That which is aware of the observer watching gaps (imaginary gaps at the surface level of consciousness, and I say imaginary because as you get deeper and deeper there are no gaps between thoughts because there are so many thoughts and what is observing is also a thought) is Nisargadatta's 'beyond the I AM", is Ramana's heart, is the essence, the primordial ground, the omniscient, whatever you'd like to call it.

 

In other terms, watching gaps between thoughts is still a dualistic function. Also, fooling yourself to believe that the "I thought" observing what it believes is emptiness is still a dualistic function.

 

 

TI

[Wayfarer]

Great points, well made everyone. Totally agree. To be conscious of Consciousness is slightly different than just 'being' Consciousness without awareness of it - this is when the observer dies. And yes, in my experience no-thought can and does occur - and that's where I'm going when I've stopped typing this!

 

[doc benway]

The observer does not exist without an observed. When you go deep enough in self-inquiry, you will find the observed, the observer which conceptualizes, but you will also realize that there is a third party which does not conceptualize, which is blissful, joyful, aware and without bounds that observes the creation and dissolution of both the observed and the observer.

Nice post TI.

I wonder about the "third party" reference here, however - maybe just semantics.

As long as there is a "third party" there is duality, yes?

And the infinite regression of that which observes, observing the observer.

There is no third party, just spaciousness imbued with clarity.

[dwai]

Hi Dwai

Somehow I can't believe you've said that.

This mystery is the crux of the matter and what should be examined very closely.

 

In the terminology that is being used here, there is the observed, the observer which conceptualizes, and then that which is aware of the observer and the observed.

 

You say "What then happens to the observer? When the observer springs forth during meditation, after a while the "observed" disappears. Then the observer realizes that the emptiness that is left is nothing but itself (the gap between thoughts is the true nature of the observer)."

 

That observer which you describe is in part the conceptual mind, the "I" thought, for it observes and it 'realizes'. What really happens in what you have described is not quite right. When the observed disappears, there is still the observer observing nothing, or space, or emptiness (emptiness is not a good word because of its underlying meanings which are often misinterpreted). The observer at this point, since, as you've said "realizes" is the conceptual mind, the "I" thought. That too must be dissolved by samadhi, constant attention.

 

According to Nisargadatta, one must go beyond that "I" thought. In Ramana's teachings, his techinque of asking "To whom do these thoughts occur" and "Who am I" are also meant to transcend the "I" thought. In Bon teachings, first you dissolve the observed, then you turn around and dissolve the observer, and the essence lies in what is found beyond.

 

The observer does not exist without an observed. When you go deep enough in self-inquiry, you will find the observed, the observer which conceptualizes, but you will also realize that there is a third party which does not conceptualize, which is blissful, joyful, aware and without bounds that observes the creation and dissolution of both the observed and the observer.

 

That is the key.

 

The gap between thoughts is not the true nature of observer for the observer is just a creation of mind. That which is aware of the observer watching gaps (imaginary gaps at the surface level of consciousness, and I say imaginary because as you get deeper and deeper there are no gaps between thoughts because there are so many thoughts and what is observing is also a thought) is Nisargadatta's 'beyond the I AM", is Ramana's heart, is the essence, the primordial ground, the omniscient, whatever you'd like to call it.

 

In other terms, watching gaps between thoughts is still a dualistic function. Also, fooling yourself to believe that the "I thought" observing what it believes is emptiness is still a dualistic function.

 

 

TI

The paradox lies in being able to function in a dualistic world.

 

Watching the gap is the only way to get started. Once you spend enough time, the gap elongates and then the "true" nature of the underlying becomes clear. Until that stage is possible, that's all we have.

 

It seems like you are trying to suggest that you have cleared that hurdle?

And are now established in satchidananda?

Edited September 13, 2013 by dwai

[Boy]

...

Edited November 3, 2013 by Boy

[Tibetan_Ice]

The paradox lies in being able to function in a dualistic world.

 

Watching the gap is the only way to get started. Once you spend enough time, the gap elongates and then the "true" nature of the underlying becomes clear. Until that stage is possible, that's all we have.

 

It seems like you are trying to suggest that you have cleared that hurdle?

And are now established in satchidananda?

 

Hi Dwai

Watching the gap might be one way of getting started, but at some point, unless you turn the focus of attention around back to the observer you won't progress.

 

Perhaps we should define the 'gap' first.

There is this little point of awarness that flits about the space of the mind, which points to a thought, then another, then to a sensation, then a memory, etc. It moves rapidly and bounces around like a pinball in a pinball machine. Whatever it hits is what you are aware of.

When a thought arises, the pinball hits that thought and you become aware of it. Since your mind is grasping the thought the pinball then proceeds to bounce around the space of the mind looking for similar thoughts, memories which give the current thought more meaning, more definition or quality (or less too). Typically, when the pinball is moving, so do the eyes (not always but most of the time.. ).

Imagine the scenario where one thought pops up, and then a second thought pops up. The distance and time it takes the pinball to travel from the first thought to the second is what I believe you are calling the 'gap'. Is that correct?

There is another way, though. When a thought pops up, look directly at the nature of the thought and hold that. Freeze the pinball. Fixate/rest your attention directly on the thought and don't permit the pinball to move around. What happens is that the thought eventually dissolves all by itself. If, at that point, you don't let the pinball move and stay fixated on that region in the space of the mind, another thought will pop up and that will grab your attention. Again, freeze the pinball and remain fixated on the nature of the thought. Eventually that will dissolve too. So you are not focusing on the gap between thoughts, but the thought, the gap, the next thought, etc..

As you keep doing this procedure, the thoughts start to arise and dissolve more quickly. As you go deeper, you are bombarded by hundreds of thoughts all rapidly arising and dissolving. It feels like you are watching a huge tornado of colorful/clear ribbons of thoughts and visions. If you maintain the perspective of the observer and don't get caught into any of the thoughts, there doesn't seem to be an end to it. The tornado just keeps spinning and I have never broken through that. I've spent weeks watching the tornado of thoughts arising and passing..

However, if you turn your attention around, and focus on the observer, that is the next step and where the progress lies. One way to do that is to focus on a thought and then focus on 'knowing the thought' and then start tracing the 'knowing' back to the knower. After you discover the fork the in the mind from the "I thought" you discover the other side of the fork, which is in the heart. It is the heart that knows (or right next to it). But everyone should discover this for themselves.

Dwai, I have experienced something five times now, perhaps it could be called "Satchidananda", I don't know. And, it wasn't during meditation. The first few times the experience happened after meditation, during a 'loving' state. Once, it happened when I was trying to be as simple as possible, reading Franklin Merrill-Wolff's advise of "it is so close to you that if you are searching for it you've already missed it.". However, the last time, the experience occured while I was taking a shower. I can't seem to cause it to happen directly through meditation.

What happens is all of a sudden, there is a liquid-like vapour which 'comes out of my face'. The surroundings look very clear, crisp and brilliant, like super high-definition TV or better. The monkey mind, the voice that talks in the mind is gone and there is a silence that is so great and still that it is hard to miss. There is also the overwhelming feeling that "I am everything".. I was the park bench, I was the trees, each blade of grass, I was the sky, the clouds, it all felt like 'me'. There was also great love, joy and bliss. It was so wonderful, you just can't imagine.

So, perhaps it could be called "Satchidananda" but it comes and goes and is not permanent. But sometimes, when I fix my gaze straight ahead and then turn my attention back through the line of sight into the direction of the medulla near the back of the head, I can see it waiting there to come out again.. I think what I am doing is looking backwards down into the kati channel from the eyes to the heart.

TI

 

Nice post TI.

I wonder about the "third party" reference here, however - maybe just semantics.

As long as there is a "third party" there is duality, yes?

And the infinite regression of that which observes, observing the observer.

There is no third party, just spaciousness imbued with clarity.

Hi Steve,

Yes, the third party is a luminous, cognizant, spacious vacuity that is filled with love and bliss. Things appear in it and then dissolve back into it. You are right.

 

TI

 

If I may..

 

TI's post is just about perfect. I am awestruck. How someone gets from trying not to breathe ;-) to this profound wisdom in little more than a year's time completely baffles me! My humble recommendation to anyone interested in getting to the core of vedanta, is to give his words some serious consideration.

 

I will only raise an insignificant objection, without going into detail, to this sentence:

 

 

So.. GREAT POST, TI!

 

@steve: respectfully, "the third party" could be described as spaciousness imbued with clarity. From my point of view it is not semantics.

@dwai: "the gap" is not the only way, that I positively & thankfully know. To be perfectly clear about this: at least not as any kind of "practice".

 

Love, D

 

Hi Boy,

Thank you for your comments.

What exactly is your minor objection to dissolving the observer through samadhi or concentration?

Is it the term 'concentration'? It is not a teeth gnashing type of concentration but a resting and letting things be while focusing directly on the observer.. is it not?

 

TI

[dwai]

 

Hi Dwai

Watching the gap might be one way of getting started, but at some point, unless you turn the focus of attention around back to the observer you won't progress.

 

Perhaps we should define the 'gap' first.

There is this little point of awarness that flits about the space of the mind, which points to a thought, then another, then to a sensation, then a memory, etc. It moves rapidly and bounces around like a pinball in a pinball machine. Whatever it hits is what you are aware of.

When a thought arises, the pinball hits that thought and you become aware of it. Since your mind is grasping the thought the pinball then proceeds to bounce around the space of the mind looking for similar thoughts, memories which give the current thought more meaning, more definition or quality (or less too). Typically, when the pinball is moving, so do the eyes (not always but most of the time.. ).

Imagine the scenario where one thought pops up, and then a second thought pops up. The distance and time it takes the pinball to travel from the first thought to the second is what I believe you are calling the 'gap'. Is that correct?

There is another way, though. When a thought pops up, look directly at the nature of the thought and hold that. Freeze the pinball. Fixate/rest your attention directly on the thought and don't permit the pinball to move around. What happens is that the thought eventually dissolves all by itself. If, at that point, you don't let the pinball move and stay fixated on that region in the space of the mind, another thought will pop up and that will grab your attention. Again, freeze the pinball and remain fixated on the nature of the thought. Eventually that will dissolve too. So you are not focusing on the gap between thoughts, but the thought, the gap, the next thought, etc..

As you keep doing this procedure, the thoughts start to arise and dissolve more quickly. As you go deeper, you are bombarded by hundreds of thoughts all rapidly arising and dissolving. It feels like you are watching a huge tornado of colorful/clear ribbons of thoughts and visions. If you maintain the perspective of the observer and don't get caught into any of the thoughts, there doesn't seem to be an end to it. The tornado just keeps spinning and I have never broken through that. I've spent weeks watching the tornado of thoughts arising and passing..

However, if you turn your attention around, and focus on the observer, that is the next step and where the progress lies. One way to do that is to focus on a thought and then focus on 'knowing the thought' and then start tracing the 'knowing' back to the knower. After you discover the fork the in the mind from the "I thought" you discover the other side of the fork, which is in the heart. It is the heart that knows (or right next to it). But everyone should discover this for themselves.

Dwai, I have experienced something five times now, perhaps it could be called "Satchidananda", I don't know. And, it wasn't during meditation. The first few times the experience happened after meditation, during a 'loving' state. Once, it happened when I was trying to be as simple as possible, reading Franklin Merrill-Wolff's advise of "it is so close to you that if you are searching for it you've already missed it.". However, the last time, the experience occured while I was taking a shower. I can't seem to cause it to happen directly through meditation.

What happens is all of a sudden, there is a liquid-like vapour which 'comes out of my face'. The surroundings look very clear, crisp and brilliant, like super high-definition TV or better. The monkey mind, the voice that talks in the mind is gone and there is a silence that is so great and still that it is hard to miss. There is also the overwhelming feeling that "I am everything".. I was the park bench, I was the trees, each blade of grass, I was the sky, the clouds, it all felt like 'me'. There was also great love, joy and bliss. It was so wonderful, you just can't imagine.

So, perhaps it could be called "Satchidananda" but it comes and goes and is not permanent. But sometimes, when I fix my gaze straight ahead and then turn my attention back through the line of sight into the direction of the medulla near the back of the head, I can see it waiting there to come out again.. I think what I am doing is looking backwards down into the kati channel from the eyes to the heart.

TI

Hi TI

I'm not much for elaborate theory and have given up on the propensity to try and explain/rationalize everything. In fact, I've found too much intellectualization detrimental to growth.

Maybe one day you will too?

Best of Luck,

Dwai

[Boy]

...

Edited November 3, 2013 by Boy

[Tibetan_Ice]

Only this, TI: Samadhi might very well be the preferable state of mind. I only wish to emphasize that it is not samadhi per se that liberates! But you’ve obviously already caught on to that on some level, since you changed the “by” to a “through”!

Hi Boy,

No, samadhi does not liberate. Samadhi comes and goes and the hinderances return.

What liberates is self-inquiry, the realization of our true nature.

But first you must the capacity for sustained attention, which is samadhi..

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

Hi TI

I'm not much for elaborate theory and have given up on the propensity to try and explain/rationalize everything. In fact, I've found too much intellectualization detrimental to growth.

Maybe one day you will too?

Best of Luck,

Dwai

 

Hi Dwai,

 

Yes, I can see from your apathetic response that you have given up on understanding, analysis and true knowledge.

 

That is why you come out with statements like you have:

Watching the gap is the only way to get started. Once you spend enough time, the gap elongates and then the "true" nature of the underlying becomes clear. Until that stage is possible, that's all we have.

 

Watching the gap is not the only way, and, as I have indicated, your statement is overly simple and misleading. And,no, that is not "all we have". There are many valid techiques and practices out there.. a few that come to mind are self-inquiry, anapanasati/vipassana, kundalini yoga, dzogchen..

 

If you are not willing to analyze and examine the content and effects of your statements, and are not willing to defend them, then perhaps you shouldn't post them where others can read them and could potentially be misled.

 

Somehow I expected more from you.

 

Enough time wasted..

 

TI

[Jetsun]

However you are defining "the gap" it is not it. How can that which everything arises in be defined by what arises in it? love and bliss are not necessarily present, it is beyond mind so whatever you say about it is going to be like trying to erect walls around infinite empty space and then saying only that inside the walls is it while ignoring that which is outside.

Hi Boy,

No, samadhi does not liberate. Samadhi comes and goes and the hinderances return.

What liberates is self-inquiry, the realization of our true nature.

But first you must the capacity for sustained attention, which is samadhi..

 

 

You don't need sustained attention to be what you are, it doesn't require any effort at all to be what you are because you already are it innately.

[dwai]

Hi Dwai,

 

Yes, I can see from your apathetic response that you have given up on understanding, analysis and true knowledge.

 

That is why you come out with statements like you have:

 

 

Watching the gap is not the only way, and, as I have indicated, your statement is overly simple and misleading. And,no, that is not "all we have". There are many valid techiques and practices out there.. a few that come to mind are self-inquiry, anapanasati/vipassana, kundalini yoga, dzogchen..

 

If you are not willing to analyze and examine the content and effects of your statements, and are not willing to defend them, then perhaps you shouldn't post them where others can read them and could potentially be misled.

 

Somehow I expected more from you.

 

Enough time wasted..

 

TI

Hi TI,

 

People I have found (increasingly so over the years) are very difficult to convince in any which way. They tend to learn from their own experiences (and mistakes thereby) far better than listening to anyone else. So I don't really care to "teach" anyone anything. And given that I'm like most people, I too tend to learn off my own experiences and mistakes.

 

I don't really have any position to defend because I do agree with you that there are more than one way to realize the gap between thoughts. It used to happen when I practiced Yoga, Kriyas, sitting meditation, running and it happens when I practice Tai Chi.

 

There is no other way I know of to "directly" experience that which everything rises and falls into. The mind needs to stop. That which is after the mind "stops" is what I call the "gap between thoughts".

 

My teacher often tells us "hardest spiritual practice is to learn how to get out of our own way"... and patiently waiting for the mind to stop is the hardest "easy" practice I have ever had.

 

Lao Tzu's "The Real Tao is that which cannot be named" and Shankara's "Brahman is silence" have never rang truer to me (and rings truer still with each passing day).

Edited September 15, 2013 by dwai