The Witness: Turning the Light Around
“If we consider the knower independently of the known, it reveals itself as pure witness. When knower and known are not-two, there is no place even for a witness.” – Jean Klein
Kenneth Folk: If we want to go to the next level (and we do), we are going to go to 2nd Gear. We are going to turn the light of attention back on itself, and we are going to ask this question: “Who am I?” Or “Who is looking?”
So, look at how smug we have been so far. It is as though we have been looking down from on high at this odd creature, saying “Ha ha. See how it does this? See how it does that?”
We are looking down on it, but what we have not done is to wonder, “Wait a minute. But who is looking?” At that moment where you turn the light around and you bust this supposed watcher, that is 2nd Gear. It is a completely different category of practice, and this needs to be explicitly understood. This is not vipassana as I learned it in Burma. They never told me to do this. They do not talk about this, so you can do vipassana until the cows come home, but unless you understand that the idea with 2nd Gear is to turn the light around and look at the supposed knower, you are not making the leap to the next level.
So let’s do that. Let’s say “Who am I?” Now with this, it is very likely that the yogi will be embedded at this level, the level of the Witness. And in fact they are so likely to be embedded that they will convince themselves that they are looking at the Witness when in fact they are not.
So I like to make the point that when you really get this Witness, it is very clear. It is a very distinct experience where the knowing mind is clearly looking back at itself in a kind of mirroring way.
There are various ways to get in touch with this. The simplest and most practical and consistently effective way is to ask the question “Who am I?” When you do that, you keep inquiring even though it appears at first that you are not getting anything out of it. At first you might feel that there is this hall of mirrors phenomenon where it just keeps rocketing back into your head: “Who am I?” “Yeah, but who is watching I? … but who is watching I? … but who is watching I?” Each one of those is seen, and you’re just going from one to the next in this apparent infinite regress.
Well, what I’ve just described is actually at the level of the bystander, which is still 1st Gear. The “hall of mirrors” effect is not yet the Witness. There is a way, though, to turn the light around and to see “I.” Ramana Maharshi talked about this. He said “dwell as the ‘I am’” as in “I…I.” So this is what it feels like: You are asking this question “who am I?” and at some point the answer actually comes back, “Well…I.” “What do you mean ‘who am I?’ … !”
Okay, that is the Witness. It is possible to become absorbed in that Witness or that witnessing consciousness. It is a good idea to become absorbed in that witnessing consciousness because you are objectifying this very subtle sense of the watcher. It might take a long time. It might take years.
Joel Groover: Are we talking about a felt sense of ‘I amness’ that is in the body? In other words, not just in the head.
KF: There are body sensations that accompany this particular perspective.
JG: When I ask the question, I seem to feel it—I almost take the awareness into the body or something.
KF: Well, when I do the Witness I feel a lot of subtle tension around the eyes and third eye area. My eyes are doing something. The way your eyes focus physically is intimately related to the way your mind focuses. One of the ways to recognize various mind states is to notice what your eyes are doing. In this particular perspective of the Witness, the eyes are locking in to a particular position. They’re looking straight ahead. They are not rolled up into my head at the moment. I’m looking at the back of my eyelids and what I’m seeing looks a little bit like a mirror. [Kenneth is describing the Witness with his eyes closed. The Witness is equally accessible with eyes open.]
So it is not entirely clear as I look at this kind of bright mirroresque quality of the back of my eyelids—it is not clear whether I am the one in this head looking at this bright, mirror-like quality or if this bright, mirror-like quality is looking back at me. That’s why it has this mirror-like quality.
JG: That is helpful because I think I was embedded in body sensation. But what you’re describing, more is being objectified there.
KF: As you become absorbed in this, you get this sense that there is this “I”, which is not the little self; this is not Kenneth as I am used to thinking of it. It includes Kenneth and it includes everything else. So basically this is not “no-self,” this is “big self,” where everything is experienced as an aspect of this Self, with a capital “S.”
JG: OK. And you can see the bystander there as being part of…?
KF: This is a different situation in that it feels very different from the bystander. The bystander is transcended and included, in integral-speak, but the only thing that is interesting to the Witness is the Witness. All the Witness wants to do is make love to itself. Everything else that comes up—and things do come up, so seeing and hearing, tasting, touching, smelling and thinking and going through your day and doing your business—all of this happens, but the Witness has no stake in any of it.
It just wants to be absorbed in itself and feel aloof from and dissociated from those other things, which are just unimportant aspects of itself. So this is a big subject [as opposed to object]. This is a big subject here. Nothing is really perceived as object; it is just a lot of subject.
JG: I’m not going to pretend to get it. I have got the 1,000 hours [of practice] to do [first]. Conceptually I believe I understand what you’re saying.
KF: Now in my experience, after having been absorbed in the witness for several years, it began to soften. And a more subtle sense of knowing became apparent. This is where Trungpa Rinpoche said, “Who is watching the watcher?” Well, that is a helluva question. Who knows the Witness?
There is a subtle sense of knowing that transcends and includes the Witness. That subtle sense of knowing comes up—it arises with the objects that are known. Now this is still consciousness. We are talking about compounded phenomena that arise according to conditions; it just so happens that whenever an object of consciousness comes up, the knowing consciousness comes up at the same time. The knowing consciousness knows the object, from this perspective. They arise together, and can’t be separated. This is a very high perspective and this is one of the fruits of Advaita practice. When you do “who am I?” and become absorbed as the Self you eventually transcend the Witness and get to this place where the kundalini energy comes back down from the head: it actually goes out the top of the head—you can actually feel this and see this—and circles back down to the body and comes to rest primarily at the heart center but also at all of the chakras along the way. It forms this kind of circuit, this kind of cocoon of energy, kundalini energy.
At this point you are no longer dissociated from your experience the way you were when you were dwelling as the Witness. I tell people when they are dwelling as the Witness, you have to let that down when you are dealing with people. Whenever you are talking with your loved ones, for example, you have to let the Witness down because they can see that you are aloof and dissociated from them. They can see that you have no stake in your own life, let alone theirs. This is toxic to interpersonal relationships. But once you transcend and include the witness with this next level, which I call the transcendent, this is the opening of the heart. [Kenneth is describing one of the highest attainments of enlightenment, which is not to be confused with what we would normally think of as “heart” or compassion.]
So from this perspective it is again possible to be with your loved ones and it is obvious to them that you do care about them. You are with them in an intimate way. There is no aloofness or dissociation whatsoever; this is the full-circle perspective of enlightened living.
Now what happens when you dis-embed even from the subtle sense of knowing?
You go beyond these compounded phenomena to the unconditioned, where there is just absolute awareness. In order for that to happen, I just have to go away. I have to surrender entirely. I cannot objectify the Absolute. Because that is where all of this awareness is coming from in the first place.
All of this awareness, by the way, it is not anything separate from or other than all of the phenomena that arise within awareness; this is all a package. Now if I were to say to you that there is some facile way in which to conceive of this without actually looking at it in real-time, I would be lying. And if anyone says to you that there is some way to conceive this—“Oh, don’t you just understand…?”—that is baloney.
It is not a concept and can never be conceived, which is why throughout the ages sages have insisted that you cannot think your way through this. But there is this remarkable experience of the integration of the absolute and the relative. So to be enlightened is to objectify everything that is arising and passing in the mind and to let awareness recognize itself.
And while we are talking about this in this very stratified way, in this very picked-apart way, the truth is it is a seamless whole, and the only reason we are doing it in this systematic way is to make it accessible so that it is possible to learn step-by-step how to dis-embed from each stratum of mind and how finally to surrender to things as they are.
JG: And so the last part of that, the 3rd Gear, you have mentioned that people have access to that [even before Theravada-style enlightenment], people like your wife?
KF: Yes.
JG: Could you talk a little bit about that?
KF: Because awareness is always operating … I should say “because in any moment awareness is operating.” You cannot even say “always” because awareness is prior to the arising of time. Awareness Is, with a capital “I”, in this moment. But to say that awareness goes on from moment to moment, that is meaningless because awareness is not about time. So what I call 3rd Gear is this Awareness, when Awareness recognizes itself. Because awareness Is, in this moment, anybody can see it. Or anybody can surrender and let it recognize itself. That is not attainment.
It is happening all the time anyway to everyone. Now the reason it often isn’t recognized is because we are distracted, and we are distracted by being embedded in the contents of our mind.
JG: So I think I’m understanding this better and I apologize if I keep beating a dead horse.
KF: No, no. Beat that horse. I’m the one who wants to hear the questions.
JG: But you know, I think this is why the “chronic yogi” thing [1] can happen also to people who are not strivers. I think they can sit down and they can access this. I don’t think they access it at the level that you might call fruitional or something, but they can sit and they can be with whatever is and they can have this equanimity where they aren’t doing anything, but then they get up and they are just totally embedded in everything else because when they are off the cushion they have not made it a—they haven’t really, really looked at pleasant, unpleasant—just in the moment—pressure. They have really not objectified phenomena to the level and extent you talk about.
KF: Right.
JG: And so you have a chronic yogi because you have hooks, hooks, hooks everywhere, right? Pulling them back down into embedded consciousness or an embedded way of being?
KF: That is right, and that is precisely why I believe Adyashanti, after teaching yogis to recognize the Absolute, then teaches what he calls advanced practice. He says, “now find out what is pulling you back into ignorance.” In my terminology, that would be “now do the developmental practice that we have been invalidating the whole time.”
Now there is a reason why he has been invalidating it the whole time and that is because you cannot simultaneously worry about your development and surrender to the absolute.
JG: Yes. If you’re going to start from 3rd Gear, you cannot do that.
KF: That’s right. So if you are going to start from 3rd Gear, people really have to buy in. They’ve got to understand that there really isn’t any other moment than this. If it does not seem good enough, nonetheless, this is it. And so there is kind of a “fake it ’til you make it” phenomenon to pure 3rd Gear teachings, where the teacher will keep insisting that this is it and the yogi will get a hint—“OK. I feel a little bit of a … something.” And then this understanding grows over time. As they learn to surrender more and more, as you say, maybe they are not really getting it at first. But maybe eventually they will. So if you’re going to be a ruthless 3rd Gear teacher you have to accept this ”fake it ’til you make it” understanding and encourage people—“Yeah, you are getting it”—when maybe they really are not getting it.
JG: Yes. Or the whole thing falls apart.
KF: Yeah. Or you have to teach people to make the clear switch in their mind between developmental practice and realization, which is what I do. I like to have people be able to turn on a dime. “Okay, a minute ago we were talking about development, but right now we are going to acknowledge that there is no development; there is no time. There’s just this.”
And so you completely give up all hope of development and notice what is always already the case. Most 3rd Gear teachers don’t do that. They just continue to invalidate development, and that also works. But then you are in a situation where you have to come back later if you want to be a good teacher—and I think Adyashanti is a good teacher—and say, “Alright, now we are going to do this work that some people call development. I’m not going to call it that, but hmmm…”
JG: Or even in just Zen. What is it, “carry water, chop wood”?
KF: I don’t think of that as being quite the same. I think of that as just being the understanding that life goes on after enlightenment. Because there is a tendency to want to romanticize this and say “OK, as soon as I get enlightened, my life is going to be a cosmic bliss-out and I’ll be good to go forever.” Well, actually what happens is that after enlightenment you do your life.
JG: I hope this is not too academic a question, but I have been wondering where subtle objects fit in here. So for example in the Visuddhimagga there are situations where people are taking very subtle objects like different consciousnesses or, like, “the base of boundless space” is listed. It makes me wonder if there are not some approaches in the Visuddhimagga anyway, if not all of Theravada Buddhism, that are getting a little bit closer to 2nd Gear than we might think?
KF: In fact, the base of boundless space—the jhana of boundless space—is the fifth of the jhanas. It is the first of the immaterial jhanas and corresponds directly in my system to “the bystander.” Now the next jhana, the sixth, which is the “jhana of infinite consciousness,” corresponds to the Witness. This is one of the things that I find so interesting, being able to marry the Theravada and Advaita. That point of sixth jhana is a crossroads because at the sixth jhana of infinite consciousness, the most important thing, the most relevant thing that is going on there when you experience that jhana is the sense of the watcher.
So this is how I teach people who can do jhana but who can’t yet do 2nd Gear practice. They don’t understand what the Witness is. I have them go to the sixth jhana, notice that the predominant sensation there is this sense of the watcher or Witness and then find that they can also identify that sense of Witness in other jhanas, and they can identify that sense of the Witness in their daily lives and all day long. From there, they can learn to cultivate this Witness all the time. That is the place where Theravada and Advaita come together. Then beyond that, Advaita is mainly about 2nd Gear but it goes also all the way to 3rd Gear, which I want to say is as important to the Advatists as 2nd Gear.
Because as Ramana Maharshi says, this dwelling as the “I am” is the stick that stirs the fire and is eventually consumed by it. So you are dwelling as the Witness and it eventually just kind of burns away and at that point you recognize this subtle sense of knowing, which is the transcendent. Even that eventually goes away, leaving just the Absolute. So this is the Grand Unified Field Theory of Dharma.
JG: We all know on some level that these distinctions that we draw from tradition to tradition ultimately are BS.
KF: Yes. Everybody is holding onto one part of the elephant thinking that they have the whole beast. If we put all of it together and see where they intersect, the elephant is there for us in all of the various traditions, as long as we don’t become attached. “Well, I am a Tibetan guy and the Tibetans say this and therefore I am going to be sectarian about that.” That is a self-limiting approach. You want to look at everything that is out there and see the whole beast.
FOOTNOTES
1. “The pre-4th ñana yogi who repeatedly fails to penetrate the object and proceed to the Arising and Passing Away of Phenomena is what Sayadaw U Pandita calls the ‘chronic yogi.’ This yogi can go to retreat after retreat, over a period of years and never understand what vipassana practice is all about. He will, upon hitting the cushion, quickly enter into a pleasant, hypnogogic state, maybe even discover jhana, but go nowhere with regard to the insight knowledges. U Pandita’s frequent exhortations to greater effort and meticulous attention to detail in noting the objects of awareness are aimed at this ‘chronic yogi.’ ”—Kenneth Folk
Bill Hamilton expanded upon this definition to talk about the “chronic achiever,” a yogi who has penetrated the object and attained the all-important Knowledge of the Arising and Passing Away of Phenomena (A&P), but seems chronically unable to attain the 1st Path of Enlightenment. In these interviews, Kenneth has merged the two terms and is using the phrase “chronic yogi” to describe yogis both pre and post A&P who are having trouble attaining 1st Path.↑
Related Posts:
Excellent description of the "gears"…thank you for that. I do have one follow-up question.
I find the assertion Awareness Is a bit troubling, but perhaps this is because I misunderstand it. Experientially this is valid, in the sense that awareness is the "Island" (as Ajahn Amaro) describes it that one cannot go beyond (or better said cannot be gone beyond as using "one" or "I" no longer becomes intelligible at that point). However, "Awareness Is" and terms such as the Absolute strike me as metaphysical assertions, not observational assertions.
Perhaps this will clarify my question or what I am struggling with. There are times when it is clear that experientially there is no awareness. In states of deep sleep there is no awareness. In taking an afternoon nap there comes a point when awareness blinks out and then back in again somewhat seamlessly, but it is clear that time has passed in the conventional world. Similarly, when under anesthesia awareness is not for a period of time. Other experiences such as being knocked unconscious suggest that awareness is discontinuous.
Am I misinterpreting the language you use around Absolute to describe awareness? Or are you asserting that awareness is also somehow present in these discontinuities or "unconscious" experiences?
Thanks in advance for the help!
Hi Shane,
I like to make the distinction between consciousness and awareness. Consciousness is, as the Buddhists would say, "compounded" and dependent upon causes and conditions. So it is consciousness that winks out when you go to sleep. Your consciousness is dependent upon the condition of being awake. Awareness, on the other hand, is uncompounded and not dependent upon causes and conditions. It operates even during deep sleep, which can sometimes be seen when you "wake up" into awareness while you're sound asleep. When awareness recognizes itself as awareness, there isn't anyone there to see it, asleep or otherwise… and nonetheless, it is known. So awareness is said to be both empty and cognizant. Awareness knows awareness. As we are doing our practice, we are always taking a step back to objectify whatever arises within the field of experience. But awareness is irreducible. It isn't possible to "get behind" awareness and take it as object as though looking in from outside because awareness comes first. So, awareness is without cause, which is another way of saying that Awareness Is.
Now, it's true that all of this sounds like heresy from a certain Theravada Buddhist point of view. On the other hand, even conservative Theravada Buddhism can be reconciled with the understanding of Absolute Awareness if we consider the possibility that Nibbana and Awareness are one and the same. For example, there is this wonderful Buddha-quote nugget from the Pali Canon (Ud 8.3):
"There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, uncompounded. If there were not this unborn, unbecome, unmade, uncompounded, then there would be no deliverance here visible from that which is born, become, made, compounded. But since there is this unborn, unbecome, unmade, uncompounded, therefore deliverance is visible from that which is born, become, made, compounded."
Is the Buddha talking about Awareness? Hmmm. There is a discussion. Best of all, though, you and I have the technology to explore these questions for ourselves, in our own experience, and come to our own (hopefully tentative) conclusions. What a wonderful thing!
Thanks for the engaging question, Shane,
Kenneth
Hi Kenneth, I have reflected & let our exchange kind of bounce around in my mind these past few days. I do have one follow-up question…..Would you be comfortable if I were to substitute the word God for your Awareness?
Thanks in advance and I hope all is well.
I love this question! My answer: why not? If we are talking about something real, then what difference does it make what we call it? People who already have some investment in what "god" must mean might be offended, of course. And Buddhists everywhere would be scandalized. But some (Meister Eckhart comes to mind, or Ramana Maharshi, or Tulku Urgyen) might be on the same page with us. Reality, whatever it is, is surely not contingent upon my opinions or the words I choose. If we can just let go of our preconceptions for a moment and directly apperceive reality as it is… oh happy day!
Thanks Kenneth,
This is interesting and helpful and I will need a few days to explore and chew on it before getting back in detail. However, a few top of mind points:
- Language is tricky, but I would loosely agree with your assertion that Nibbana = Awareness = Unconditioned. In traditional Abhidhamma there is the Unconditioned Element with is taken as an axiom, this is similar to your assertion that Awareness Is. I have heard some Theravadans talk about Nibbana in a way that directly equates it to the Unconditioned/Awareness. These tend to be those more rooted in the analytical philosophy/abhidhammic approaches. I have also heard others more rooted in the Ajahn Chah lineage speak of Nibbanna as "the reality of nongrasping" which makes it more experiential or observational, rather than absolute as in the abhidhammic approach.
- Again, in meditation experience it is clear that one can go no deeper than to simply say Awareness is. However, if we jump back into the realm of the reasoning/rational mind it seems fair to ask where does awareness come from? It is possible that it is function/epiphenomenon of the nervous system (brain, etc) or it is possible that it is some absolutely unconditioned self-existent, Absolute.
- I guess where I struggle with a broad assertion that Awareness Is, that it is completely unconditioned….is that this is an almost metaphysical statement. Awareness might be conditioned, it might be a result of the body….or it might not. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your perspective, but I struggle when we/anyone makes the leap from meditation/observation/experience to metaphysical claims.
Anyway, I suppose much of the above is neither here nor there, but let me chew on it a bit more. Anything you can add to clarify would be very helpful.
Thanks in advance!
It's difficult for me to see how we can assert that Awareness/awareness is not dependent on causes and conditions when the only way we know it or it can be known/experienced is through the embodied process of meditation/exploration. Until death there is no way to know if awareness/unconditioned continues beyond death (if using the word continues would even make sense)
It seems that it would be a perfectly valid assumption to state that this baseline awareness is somehow a function/output of the materialistic operations of the body. It also seems a perfectly valid assumption to state that it is not. However, it seems to be going too far to assert (based on the experience available to me) that awareness/Awareness is somehow completely independent of the body and therefore completely independent of causes and conditions.
I am tempted to apply Nagarjuna's concept/observation of emptiness to Awareness/awareness itself in the sense that we (at least I) can't confidently assert that Awareness actually exists in an absolute sense.
Anyway, you probably never intended to imply such a metaphysical assertion anyway, so apologies if I misunderstood. I would agree that as far as experience and meditation go, awareness is the island that can't be gone beyond or gotten behind.
Still, I am only still learning, so perhaps I completely misinterpret. Thanks.
"I tell people when they are dwelling as the Witness, you have to let that down when you are dealing with people."
Can you elaborate a bit on this?
For me, being around others when I'm dwelling as the Witness seems to be similar to having a very particular sense of humor. The odd person will totally get it, the majority would think "this guys is weird", some would get annoyed, and others would get very uncomfortable. In my experience it seems to depend on the person I'm interacting with.
I guess I am asking because, I'm in a bit of a bind if your advice is valid; I dwell so often (and in most situations) so people who are close to me know it and seem to accept it for the most part. I know that it's important to be relateable in dealing with people, but for now dwelling as the Witness is the closest thing I know to being what I really am; I don't want to have to pretend to be something I know I am not.
What do you think?
I think this is an interesting question, Mark, and my inclination is to defer to your own instincts. If you don't find that people are put off by your dwelling as the Witness, then why not continue to do so? Now that we've raised the issue, though, you can ask yourself the question explicitly: "Do people tell my I'm aloof when I'm dwelling as the Witness?" If the answer is "no," then you have the best of both worlds; you can deepen your relationships while also doing a very powerful practice that leads to awakening. After all, the way to transcend the Witness is to dwell as the Witness while occasionally inquiring into who it is that "knows the knower."
If, however, you find that you really are dissociated and aloof, you can decide to let the Witness down while with your loved ones, striking a balance between what I think of as "vertical development," which is movement up the ladder toward enlightenment and "horizontal development," which means spreading out and mastering whatever level you find yourself at now; this would include your relationships. If you have to take a little longer to "get enlightened," but are taking care of your loved ones all along the way, it will have been a good trade.
That's awesome Kenneth, thanks. I'll call that one your "Outer Limits Teaching" …We control the horizontal. We control the vertical.
Hehe, I'm dating myself there.
Just to add something to the mix….I once talked with Gil Fronsdal (whom I consider one of the most helpful teachers out there) and I said something along the lines of, "this term the Unconditioned or unconditioned troubles me". His response was, "I tend to think of it as another dimension of consciousness." I found that answer quite helpful in that there does seem to be an awareness that is also known as Unconditioned or Nibbana…and it has all of the qualities (or lack of qualities) you mention. However, I struggle to make the leap from this awareness to an understanding that would create an Awareness in the absolute metaphysical sense.
However, on the flip side I do agree that the Theravada vipassana approach does have to be dropped at some point to allow certain experiences come to the fore, such as the "I am".
Nagarjuna said something along the lines that those who take emptiness to be some Emptiness that absolutely exists are the hardest of all to cure. Perhaps I am overly cautious but I shy away from turning the bare awareness or primordial awareness into something other than another dimension of consciousness or being or experience. That said, I do fundamentally believe that this awareness is crucial to the type of lasting happiness (or I would say peace) and surrender that is, for me at least, the goal.
Anyway, I've rambled too much, but I just wanted to clarify my understanding of awareness vs Awareness after some reflection, because I am genuinely interested in understanding if I am missing something.
Great post and your website is very helpful. Thanks
Hi Shane,
These concepts of awareness, the witness, consciousness, absolute, the unconditioned, Nibbana etc are confusing for the rational mind as it just cannot understand…the 'aha moment' is not of the thinking mind and at that point no concept is valid.
But to explain it to my own rational mind it is easiest for the thoughts to say that the awareness within this mind/body is the gateway or the key to Nibbana/the Absolute or Oneness. This awareness within the mind/body could as you say be "a function/output of the materialistic operations of the body. It also seems a perfectly valid assumption to state that it is not." Interestingly the Buddha never really talked about that which is aware or the knower of the five aggregates. Perhaps he didn't want us to get 'stuck' at the awareness duality level (awareness of…), but wanted a full non-dual experience of 'oneness' or Nibbana.
So purely for my Western rational mind to try to grasp these concepts, I have been inclined to say that while this awareness within the mind/body is always there, it does seem to need to be strengthened via meditation on objects and later turned back on itself. During this process of strengthening (yes it seems like a process), the awareness at some point 'flicks' (for want of a better word), into a realization of not 'awareness of' but just a non-dual 'oneness'. Then there is this seeing that the awareness 'within' the mind/body is the same awareness 'outside' the mind/body (remember that what is seen is 'oneness' so there is ultimately no duality of in or out). And this seeing of oneness is a spaciousness…objects are still seen to be there but there is no real separation…I describe it like a merging but not as a verb as ultimately all is merged (whew
.
So although awareness within the mind/body is ultimately the absolute or Nibbana, one can only see or know this after this 'flick' hence this can only be an experiential knowing. Therefore I prefer to use the concepts of awareness for that knower within the mind/body, and Oneness or the Absolute/Nibbana for that which is seen to ultimately be all (including the mind/body and awareness itself). These of course are all relative concepts and can be disputed, but I offer them as they are helpful for me.
Hi Shane.
Your comments reminded me of how I had been rattled a few months ago after a dialogue I'd had with a friend of mind who is a neurologist. He said, "Mind is brain, brain is mind. Your consciousness is nothing other than your brain tissue itself." He talked about stroke patients who suffered from a condition called "neglect"–half their body would be paralyzed and yet they would be unaware that anything was wrong. How could there be any ghost in the machine, my friend asked, if consciousness can be truncated in this way as a result of brain damage? The Buddha, of course, also asserted that there was no ghost in the machine. What about the unconditioned?
Why was I so rattled? I had been reading a lot about out-of-body experiences, rebirth, the consciousness explorations of Stan Grof, and had inadvertently started to develop what the Buddha called an "attachment to view." Initially, I had set about putting my own logical positivism to the test by reading up on the paranormal or metaphysical dimensions, and along the way had started to allow some belief to set in.
[cont. below]
The interesting thing is that my friend was also rattled by the exchange. He described standing in a patient's room, lost in thought about these topics, when he was supposed to be asking the patient questions. He even got somewhat angry at a certain point. Probably some part of him sensed that there is this vast potential that he is missing–he sneers at concepts such as prana, chakras or kundalini energy, for example, and yet these are experiential realities for millions of meditators. I believe that on some level my friend is aware that materialism cannot adequately express the high weirdness of reality.
The two opposites I've tried to describe above really point to the problem of accepting any particular view. (Go Nargajuna!) From what I can see, Kenneth is all about finding out for yourself through practice, not about accepting a particular view and clinging to it.
Only once in my life have I woken up in the middle of deep dreamless sleep. I'm able to remember the experience because I continued to be cognizant of what was happening as I came out of this into normal, waking consciousness. The sense that I had of everything being fundamentally OK and of all of my suffering and all of time being utterly insubstantial and unreal–I don't know how to explain that. I don't know if this was a conditioned or unconditioned event, although it was clear that what was happening could not truly be remembered. What interests me is the idea of trying to find out how much of this territory can be explored through meditative inquiry. Views that we are either troubled or untroubled by, they seem to get in the way.
OK, long post! Sry!
Joel,
Well said and I love the contrast between the two views. Though the worldview in which I have studied is the scientific materialist one, I agree that much cannot be described within that paradigm.
My spidey sense immediately perks up and gets uncomfortable anytime any discussion veers towards metaphysical absolutes for exactly the reason's you point out above (attachment to views, Nagarjuna, etc.) However, I agree that Kenneth's perspective is rooted in experience and focused on the practical…this is great!
Thank you for sharing your experiences around waking up from deep, dreamless sleep. I have been woken up a number of times by phones, others, etc. in deep dreamless sleep and my only observation that I can put into words is that something was going on in that state. Memory didn't seem to be operating , but something was happening.
In contrast to this, I have been under anesthesia once in my life and that was a different experience. The last thing I remember saying as they put the drugs into my arm was, "so this is going to knock me out" and bam that was it. I woke up in bed, though my parents informed me that as I was coming out of it I was able to say things which I don't remember.
I have a colleague who was bit by a poisonous sea snake when he was young that put him unconscious for a day or two. According to him the last thing he remembers was being in the water and the next thing he remembers was waking up in the hospital bed two days later from a coma. Hard to say what happens to awareness in these states, but interesting to think about!
Thanks for the food for thought