Hehe, I'm dating myself there.

Thanks in advance and I hope all is well.

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.

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

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!

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]

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.

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

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?

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.

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!

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

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!