by Greg Goode
The duality inherent in the witness may be characterized in several ways:
It seems as though there is a duality between subject and object. It seems like this duality provides structure to experience. In other words, it seems that there are arisings and witnessing awareness to which they appear. This is felt very sweetly and lightly. It is vastly different from the substantial and heavy dualism that one had felt earlier, when it seemed that minds and bodies were made out of something other than awareness. This duality is very subtle. One knows that arisings can’t be anything other than awareness because there is no place else for them to be. This is a bit indirect. It feels this way because the subject/object distinction, which is a very basic duality, has not yet dissolved.
It seems as though there is a duality between arisings. It seems that arisings come and go. It seems that there are many arisings happening in a serial stream. Even though one feels confident that they are nothing other than awareness, they still seem to come in a multiplicity. This is a sweet, light and loving situation, but it is not nondual.
Using higher reason, you may investigate in several ways, any one of which can resolve the issue. Basically, the process is the same as you have used all along. You come to find out that it makes no sense whatsoever to consider arisings to be independent. In fact, you come to see that they can’t really arise unless they are independent. Since they can’t possibly be independent, then it makes no sense to consider that they arise in the first place.
You can investigate the notion of arising itself. How does it seem possible for something to arise inside awareness if it can’t possibly ever arise outside of awareness? You may investigate the aspect of time, because it seems that the arisings happen over time. If time isn’t something real, then it must itself be an arising. If that is true, then how does that realization affect the structure of the serial stream of arisings?
Or one can examine memory. Memory is a lot less abstract than the nature of an arising or the nature of time! In fact, in Atma Darshan Sri Atmananda refers to this approach more than any other to help dissolve the subtle structure of the witness.
Let’s try a final experiment with higher reason, using memory as our key ingredient.
Experiment to collapse the witness
Let’s take a look at the structure of the witness in the same way we earlier looked at the teacup and at our arm.
Sit comfortably, allowing yourself a deep, slow breath or two. Don’t try to think about anything in particular. Don’t try to not think about anything either. Let arisings come and go. If they repeat, let them repeat. If nothing comes up, that’s fine too. Either way; nothing is preferred.
Let the whole stream of arisings continue. Let what comes come. Let what goes go...
At some point, remember a previous arising – perhaps an arising that you would earlier have called a “thought.” Try to remember one that was clear and maybe even vivid. Remember it. If you can, hold it there.
Notice that the thought that is being remembered is not actually present. What is present is the memory, which is another thought. The present memory-thought is different from the remembered thought. It is present, and the remembered thought is not present. Try to feel this.
Now try to picture the arising of that previous thought. When it arose, the memory-thought was not present. Try to feel this.
Notice that the two thoughts or arisings are never present at the same time. When the original thought arose, the memory-thought wasn’t yet present. And when the memory-thought arises, the remembered thought is no longer present.
The two thoughts or arisings never touch each other. The memory claims to refer to the previous thought, but the previous thought is not present to substantiate the claim. There is actually no proof, no direct experience that the previous thought ever arose. If memory cannot prove the existence of a previous thought, it is not really memory.
Now continue with what seems to be the stream of thoughts. Notice that without memory to make claims about the past, there is never any proof of a thought other than the current thought, right now. Even the supposed multiplicity of thoughts is merely the claim of a single thought, making claims without corroborating proof. There’s no proof or direct experience of there being even two thoughts. There can’t be two thoughts. Try to feel this.
This leads to something altogether radical. If there can’t be two thoughts, it doesn’t make sense that there is even one thought! The present thought isn’t anywhere else when it’s not occurring. It doesn’t go into hiding in some other location. It can’t truly be absent in the usual sense. So then it makes no sense to regard it as present even now. To be able to be either present or absent from awareness, the thought would have to be able to be independent of awareness. But independence is not experienced, and makes no sense. It makes no sense that you are witnessing a thought before you. There is no proof. So it’s actually not a thought or arising in the first place. What is going on right now is only awareness. The subject/object structure cannot sustain itself, and collapses peacefully into pure consciousness. Try to feel this...
Witnessing awareness collapses peacefully into pure consciousness when it is realized that the witness is just as dualistic as walking up to the Eiffel Tower and giving it a kick. The witness is much more subtle, but just as dualistic. The witness was a structure consisting of a seer and a multiplicity of things seen. But it was realized that this structure wasn’t verified by experience.
Pure awareness or consciousness has no parts, no gaps, no distinctions and no functions. Unlike the witness, it doesn’t even have the function of illuminating arising objects. There is no difference between seer and seen, and no arising objects. Your experience as pure consciousness is unbroken in every way. Pure consciousness is full, radiant presence. Pure consciousness shines in its own glory. It is the being of you and the world.
* * *
This is the story of how your love of awareness can enlist the help of higher reason to reveal the secrets of awareness. As Sri Atmananda has said, you have harmoniously blended the head and the heart in peace. You are free, even from the teaching itself. There is great eye-twinkling joy in this!
Dialogues
The Direct Path
Tell me more about the direct path.
This is Sri Atmananda’s phrase – “the direct path to Truth.” In it, your nature as nondual awareness is emphasized at the very start. There is no ignorance to shed, no transformation to undergo, no special emotional experience required to certify an end state. He opposes it to the “progressive path,” in which you progress gradually towards an intended final state.
How does one do it?
By being and seeing. Your stand as awareness is a way of looking at the mind, body, actions and world from the standpoint of awareness, which is what you already are. This is the “being” part. You come to see that your every experience naturally and effortlessly confirms your nature as awareness, and the stand dissolves. This is the “seeing” part.
Isn’t this a bit presumptuous, taking a stand as awareness?
It’s not like practicing medicine without a license. You already are awareness. It’s a case of standing up for your birthright.
This sounds great; it almost sounds too easy, in fact. How does one actually go about it?
When you do your inquiry and examine objects such as the items in the world, or thoughts, or the self you take yourself to be, have you noticed that you look in different ways? When you see a coffee cup, you are taking a stand as a person. When you see the coffee cup as a visual subtle image, you are taking a stand as a mind to which senses communicate information. This stand is more subtle. It is a step in the right direction. And when you realize how all senses and thoughts require awareness in order that they be seen, how they cannot possibly be seen without awareness, you are taking your stand as this witnessing awareness itself.
This sounds deep. Do I do it all the time, like when I’m driving a car?
It is so
mething you begin to do at the times you normally inquire. You come to see that its effects blossom out to include all of life. It leaves you free for everyday activities.
While driving a car, you don’t need to think about any of this – you just drive the car! During your inquiry, take your stand as awareness and see if it is really true that you as a person really drove a car... See what your experience confirms.
OK, then what?
You will see that the person, the car, the driving, were all objects arising in awareness itself. That you are awareness not only while taking your stand but that you are awareness all the time. You will see that you were never anything else; you will see that there is nothing else to be made of. You will stop believing and feeling as though you are something other than awareness. It is this simple.
This really does sound direct.
Yes, awareness is present as your nature from the very beginning. Being it, you see as it.
Your Experience
What is your experience like?
There is no identification of a “your” or “my” in it. I don’t see a gap between me and my experience. I don’t see myself as “having” experience. Being and experience are inseparable.
No, I mean is it nondual? Is it happy? Is it better than mine?
Many people ask this. They look for a teacher who they feel has more blissful experiences than they do. Then they hang around, trying to get the same for themselves. They interpret experience in a personal way, and they are interested mainly in the emotional or affective component.
Sometimes the teacher encourages this message. But this comes from arrogance and a sense of separation on the teacher’s part, from thinking that he or she is different from or better than the student. The age-old message of self-inquiry is not about emotions or feelings or interpersonal comparisons, but about knowing yourself. When one knows one’s self as awareness, the basis for interpersonal comparison has evaporated.
Yes, I’ve heard this...
But if you, seeing yourself as a person, desire more pleasant feelings, there are many ways to proceed. Eat healthy foods, get plenty of sleep and exercise, think good thoughts, and treat people well. These are the things that grandmothers tell their grandkids. It’s common sense that still holds true.
Meditation helps as well. Two quick examples. There is an emotional high and an expanded feeling from doing chanting meditation. The feeling is even greater if the chanting is in a tradition where you feel attracted to the symbols and images. Also, there is a heart-opening feeling from the Buddhist metta meditation, where you direct the wish for happiness and well-being first to yourself, and then to wider and wider groups of people and beings, including all the sentient beings in all universes everywhere. The benefits from these meditations are tangible and immediate. You always feel better, lighter, more open and more loving afterwards. And the more you do them, the less you do them for your own benefit, and the longer the benefits last.
But what the ancient wisdom teachings talk about is something else.
Yes, but I want my experience to be lastingly blissful and nondual. Like yours and like the satsang teachers I hear, and Ramana’s and Nisargadatta’s experience.
Part of the reason you have this requirement is that you imagine others being separate but in this same state. But this isn’t what they say about themselves. It isn’t even what they’re talking about. Ramana and Nisargadatta – not only are they not talking about emotional, phenomenal feeling states, but they are also not personalizing experience. The pointer given by all these teachings is not personal. The pointer directs you to see through the presumption of the separate person. The person cannot withstand inquiry. So it is not the person’s experience they are talking about.
Then what are they talking about? I thought Ramana and Nisargadatta were talking about themselves.
Nisargadatta did speak later in his life of the pain. This is a clue that he wasn’t speaking about blissful feeling states...
Yeah, what about an experience of pain? Isn’t that a case of suffering in experience?
Experience is the vast, edgeless clarity in which things seem to arise. It possesses no point of view or stake in things. Maybe it seems like experience is “yours” – but actually everything you can point to that feels like “you” is an arising in experience.
What do you mean?
Look at your hand... Now close your eyes and allow your hand to rest on your knee... It probably seems like it’s your hand. But everything you can say about it is based on a thought, or image, a kinesthetic feeling, or a belief. These thoughts and feelings aren’t tied down to an owner. They are not located or centered, but float free in awareness. There is nothing about these feelings, and nothing in awareness, that makes any of it “yours.” There is no tie to a person. The person is not the experiencer; the person is experienced.
How can I know that? It seems like I have a definite stake in things. Because I want, what did you say? – the “edge...”
Edgeless clarity?
Yes! Once I hear something like this, it feels natural to want it for myself.
Yes it does. This is natural as long as you take yourself to be a container of experience. It seems to you that experience is something that happens inside you, and that other people have their own experiences inside them. But it is the other way around. Your body, your mind, and everything identifiable about you are experienc-ed, witness-ed. Body, mind, thoughts, values and memories are all objects. The clarity is the light within which they arise.
Wow! It’s like backwards. But is this something I can see?
You’re seeing it now! Actually, all seeing is it. You can’t possess it, because it is the space within which you appear. It’s like the airline passenger wanting to hold up the plane, when the plane is holding up the passenger.
Ah, I felt a shift there... But a moment later, when I think about it a little, it doesn’t seem like that to me.
Don’t try to reason it out. Stand farther back for a moment and be open... The person is something you seem to observe as if from a small distance. You aren’t actually the skull, mind, body or memories of the person – those are objects that are observed. You are what they appear to – that global experience, that openness, within which things seem to arise. The body, the mind, even the entire person seems to arise within this openness. The openness is you, which is why it seems that “you” notice things arising.
But why aren’t all my experiences like these close, direct ones you mention?
These seemingly close, direct experiences are teaching pointers for what is now and always the case. All experience is always direct – there is no partition or mediation, no veil, and no subject/object split.
OK, but can you explain how that is “always” the case?
There is never any subject/object split in the first place. The “split” is part of a story that has become a habit. The notion of the split and the feeling of being at a distance from objects can actually fall away, and experience recaptures its original, global and unbroken beauty.
How can I make it fall away for me?
Have you ever had an experience such as totally getting caught up by a sunset or movie? Where there’s no sense of self or other, not even a sense of what is going on at the moment? It seems quite nondual. Sometimes it’s called “being in the zone.”
Sure.
Look deeply into this sunset experience, and see how all your experience is like this. Even the experiences where you seem to be separate are just like this. Every moment is like this. Even thinking that it is not like this, is just like the sunset experience. You are always at one with yourself as awareness right there. Only later does it seem like there was something in particular that you were doing. But even then, in the midst of this later “seeming,” you are totally there as well.
Ah yes! I can tell you that right now, this moment sure seems whole and unbroken.
Yes, it is all like this...
Thank you!
Visit From a Chemist
My friend told me about your conversation last week. But I’d like to know what your experience is like.