The Watcher

Jeffrey

7 years ago when I first came to my teacher. Lama Shenpen, I remember in my meditation I was this solid watcher and in my meditation it was like I was a statue. Though it was kind of peaceful now I feel more alive in my meditation.

The Internal Watcher
Lama Shenpen Hookham
Summary: A student comments on how she has used the technique of a 'watcher' to help her in overcoming certain habits; Lama Shenpen reminds us that both watcher and watched are thoughts.

A student writes:

"In Review of Section B (Coursebook 3, p. 70, ‘Discovering the Heart of Buddhism’): it says, “In particular we are warned of the mistake of setting up an internal ‘watcher’.’'

For many years now I have used this technique to great effect in relieving myself of less than useful habits. To me it is a powerful technique and, to be warned against it seems a little perplexing."

Lama Shenpen:

It is good to raise this issue because it is a subtle point that is being made here.

Obviously, it is important to be aware of what is going on and what we are doing. For that, a certain detachment is required, a kind of stepping back and watching what is going on.

However, if that becomes too strong a habit, it can lead to a kind of hardening of one's perception so that one identifies too much with the watcher as separate from the watched. This can lead to a certain insensitivity, a lack of spontaneity and relaxation.

The answer to this is to recognise that both watcher and watched are thoughts in the space of awareness. There is no hard and fast dichotomy. It is more a play in the space of awareness that can be very open and relaxed.

Woah93

Interesting, yes I remember the time when I discovered "the watcher". It was while reading a book and a thought popped into my head. You know that voice you hear when you read the words reading it out for you? Repeating the words? That is you right? If that's you... then who is listening?
Woah...

It does lead to a certain insensitivity but in my view this is caused by objectivity. Instead of dwelling inside your head you are just listening to it. You have control by being able to decide what thoughts are valid and invalid. I tend to think of it as having 2 minds. I like to use my mind to read thoughts as the ear hears sounds. Sound arises as it is and then disappears.

Particularly helpful when dealing with depression. Did you know EVERY SINGLE PERSON with depression thinks he is worthless, no good and a pain in the ass to be around? If those thoughts were in any way accurate or based on truth we would have a lot of horrible people. I think, as those thoughts only keep you down, it is good to be able to switch "minds" and be the watcher.

Just my thoughts on the subject, peace.

Jeffrey

I like what you said about depression.

how

@Jeffrey
A tibetan practioner once sent me a description of his meditation where included was...

"We shouldn't make a division in our meditation between perception and the field of perception. We shouldn't become like a cat watching a mouse. We should realize that the purpose of meditation is not to go deeply into ourselves or withdraw from the world.
Practice should be free and non-conceptual, unconstrained by introspection and concentration."

I don't know if this is something common within a Tibetan meditation practice but was struck by how similar it was to Zen's Shikantaza.

Zenshin

@how

@Vajraheart once said to me that all turnings of the wheel of Dharma are as empty as everything else. I've read some Dogen and see no contradiction between what Dogen teaches and the Buddha teaches in the Pali canon.

I find the more that I read about Zen the more I understand about Theravada and vice-versa. AJahn Chah comes across as very Zen sometimes.

Sabre

'The knower' is usually called consciousness or citta (mind), which is what knows. That knowing is often seen to be the ultimate 'self'. Very often people can get the perception, or the paradigm, in their minds of perceiving something in here, which can just know and not be touched by what it knows. It just knows heat and cold, pleasure and pain. It just knows beauty and ugliness. However, at the same time (somehow or other), it can just stand back and not be known, and not be touched by what's actually happening. It is important to understand that the nature of consciousness is so fast, so quick, that it gives the illusion of continuity. Owing to this illusion, one misses the point that whatever one sees with your eyes, or feels with the body, the mind then takes that up as it's own object, and it knows that it saw. It knows that it felt. It's that knowing that it saw, knowing that it felt, that gives the illusion of objectivity. It can even know that it knew.

....

However, as it says in the suttas, one can see that even knowing is conditioned (sankhata) (MN 64). One can see that this too rises because of causes, and then ceases when the causes cease. This is actually where one starts to see through the illusion of objectivity. It is impossible to separate the 'knower' from the known. As the Buddha said many times, "In all of the six senses, such as the mind base, when mind base and mind objects come together it turns on mind consciousness. The coming together of the three is called phassa (contact)" (eg. MN, 28). Consciousness is conditioned, it has its causes, and it's not always going to be there.


http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Ajahn_Brahm_ANATTA.htm

anataman

how said:

@how
A tibetan practioner once sent me a description of his meditation where included was...

"We shouldn't make a division in our meditation between perception and the field of perception. We shouldn't become like a cat watching a mouse. We should realize that the purpose of meditation is not to go deeply into ourselves or withdraw from the world.
Practice should be free and non-conceptual, unconstrained by introspection and concentration."

I don't know if this is something common within a Tibetan meditation practice but was struck by how similar it was to Zen's Shikantaza.

That was really helpful @how! I have recently been through something similar in my meditation, and knew there was something not quite right but couldn't put my 'non-finger' on what it was.

I have found many Tibetan and Zen teachings and practices are in essence one and the same, but that seems obvious to me as they have evolved from the same teacher but have over time been sieved through other minds.

As an aside - you talk of a 'field of perception'. When I meditate I tend to conceive of a 'field of awareness within which perceptions manifest'. What do you have to say to that, or do you suggest I just start a thread on the subject and see what others have to say on it?

anataman

BTW I know I should not be making conceptions, but sometimes they effectively help me bridge gaps, before letting them go!

how

.

anataman said:

how said:

@how
A tibetan practioner once sent me a description of his meditation where included was...

"We shouldn't make a division in our meditation between perception and the field of perception. We shouldn't become like a cat watching a mouse. We should realize that the purpose of meditation is not to go deeply into ourselves or withdraw from the world.
Practice should be free and non-conceptual, unconstrained by introspection and concentration."

I don't know if this is something common within a Tibetan meditation practice but was struck by how similar it was to Zen's Shikantaza.

That was really helpful @how! I have recently been through something similar in my meditation, and knew there was something not quite right but couldn't put my 'non-finger' on what it was.

I have found many Tibetan and Zen teachings and practices are in essence one and the same, but that seems obvious to me as they have evolved from the same teacher but have over time been sieved through other minds.

As an aside - you talk of a 'field of perception'. When I meditate I tend to conceive of a 'field of awareness within which perceptions manifest'. What do you have to say to that, or do you suggest I just start a thread on the subject and see what others have to say on it?

@anataman

In Zen meditation I try to allow all phenomena to arise, exist & depart, unmolested by my habituated impulses.
Your "Tending to conceive" is part of that molesting and would be a good example of an impulse best left unfed.

I think your question remains within the op's thread parameters.

anataman

Yes, I know you are right @how. I like the reference to the 'molestation by my habituated impulses', they seem to be everywhere!

Forgive my ignorance but what do you mean by the question remains within the 'op's thread parameters'

how

@ anataman
Sorry..Slow typing here.. I was saying that I thought your thread could stay here, instead of you starting another one, for it pertained so closely to Jeffreys.

Jeffrey

Yeah I don't mind comparing the Watcher observations to other traditions. No vegetarian or rebirth though (or marijuana eg and the five precepts) That's an in joke newcomers about are most endless debates that go nowhere.

lobster

I have found many Tibetan and Zen teachings and practices are in essence one and the same

Watch carefully and Therevada will be seen as much the same . . .

The initial practice of concentration, for example in breath concentration or chanting, generates a sense of duality. 'I am counting my vipassana breaths', 'I am chanting', 'I am lifting my foot, my foot is lowering . . . gosh I am walking slowly', 'I am prostrating, add another notch on the mala'

. . . or perhaps in other systems, 'I am staring at a candle', 'I am telling you, Harry is Krishna' etc.

Then we integrate with the experience and experiences,
'Hari Rama',
'God is Greater',
'One . . . two . . . three',
'when is that &@cking gong being rung' . . .

This can lead to trance states and so the more gentle, 'being the experience', should be loose and free as well as not just 'mind meandering' . . .

Soon we may just sit by a river, entering the stream . . .
. . . where will it all end . . . or begin, come to that.

:orange:

betaboy

how said:

@Jeffrey
A tibetan practioner once sent me a description of his meditation where included was...

"We shouldn't make a division in our meditation between perception and the field of perception. We shouldn't become like a cat watching a mouse. We should realize that the purpose of meditation is not to go deeply into ourselves or withdraw from the world.
Practice should be free and non-conceptual, unconstrained by introspection and concentration."

I don't know if this is something common within a Tibetan meditation practice but was struck by how similar it was to Zen's Shikantaza.

But isn't this inevitable during meditation or even simple observation - the cat and mouse, or watcher and watched? How else is one to watch, then?

anataman

With :bowdown: EQUANIMITY

SeaOfTranquility

Receptive awareness is very close to the idea of a witnessing consciousness.

We have a strong tendency to split up our world, especially between the perceived and the perceiver. Similarly, we often make a distinction between the doer and the action: I’m the doer and I am doing something, I am the speaker who is speaking. Most people consider the idea that there is a separate perceiver or a doer to be simple common sense. Buddhism challenges this assumption.

Part of what we learn to do in meditation practice is to steady our attention, to develop a simple, receptive awareness. Resting in receptive awareness is an antidote to our efforts of building and defending a self.

The assumption that there is “someone who is aware” falls away. Sometimes this is called an experience of non-dualistic awareness: the distinctions between perceiver and perceived disappear. There is no one who is aware; there is only awareness and experience happening within awareness.

how

@betaboy
There is an important difference between having something arise in meditation and feeding it. Here we are talking about just sitting. All the sense gates (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind ) are allowed to freely operate without hindrance or imbalance.

This simply means not identifying with, excluding or pushing one particular sense gate over any other.

DairyLama

lobster said:

The initial practice of concentration, for example in breath concentration or chanting, generates a sense of duality. 'I am counting my vipassana breaths', 'I am chanting', 'I am lifting my foot, my foot is lowering . . . gosh I am walking slowly', 'I am prostrating, add another notch on the mala'

That's easily solved, just drop the "I"...so it's "counting", "chanting", etc.
Hey presto, instant anatta.

pegembara

When suffering arises in the body, contemplate it so that the mind will accept it for what it is. When physical illness occurs, the grasping mind starts clinging to the idea of being ill. In fact it is the earth-element that is unwell. If the meditator's mind is stable and clearly sees the three characteristics he will simply regard illness as an affair of the elements. He knows that the mind is formless and not subject to such pains. It is due to clinging to the idea of self, and that the body belongs to self, that mental suffering arises. In fact this body is merely elements and it is the elements that are sick. It is the earth, water, fire and air elements that are disturbed. If one can separate things in this way then the mind rests at ease. Whatever occurs in the physical body, there is no clinging to it as belonging to self. It is seen as simply a matter of elements, a matter of aniccam dukkham anatta, it is just the nature of things. The present knowing clearly, truly and constantly. The mind is cool, no longer hot with clinging.

Suppose someone harshly scolds or maligns us. Even if they abuse us right to our faces, if we don't cling, it ends right there. What has arisen passes away. But if the knowing is misled it grasps at this body and mind as being self. When someone speaks to us harshly we get angry: "That's nothing to do with me!" Due to clinging there is "me" and "mine." It is just this clinging that is the cause of suffering, agitation, turmoil and disease.

Looang Boo Sim

lobster

betaboy said:

But isn't this inevitable during meditation or even simple observation - the cat and mouse, or watcher and watched? How else is one to watch, then?

First of all @how as usual, has given a good answer but sitting with a depressed mind is too hard. It is why prostrations or walking meditation is more appropriate in such cases.
Cat and mouse juggling is not the issue. Skilful, which means appropriate, is the criterion [ceiling cat or @federica may be watching from above]

David

betaboy said:

how said:

@Jeffrey
A tibetan practioner once sent me a description of his meditation where included was...

"We shouldn't make a division in our meditation between perception and the field of perception. We shouldn't become like a cat watching a mouse. We should realize that the purpose of meditation is not to go deeply into ourselves or withdraw from the world.
Practice should be free and non-conceptual, unconstrained by introspection and concentration."

I don't know if this is something common within a Tibetan meditation practice but was struck by how similar it was to Zen's Shikantaza.

But isn't this inevitable during meditation or even simple observation - the cat and mouse, or watcher and watched? How else is one to watch, then?

To watch by not watching... To play it out without labeling anything.

taiyaki

My teacher in a talk told me to kill the watcher.

When I heard it my mouth dropped.

Gui

I'm watching Lobster
and Lobster's watching me
Woo-hoo !

xabir

"There is no one who is aware; there is only awareness and experience happening within awareness."

To be clearer it should also be clarified that awareness is experience and experience is awareness, they are synonymous, there is no awareness besides experience nor an experience that is not aware. There is no larger awareness containing experience.

DairyLama

taiyaki said:

My teacher in a talk told me to kill the watcher.

Was this referring to the internal commentary that we all have?

DairyLama

ourself said:

To watch by not watching... To play it out without labeling anything.

Though consciously labelling experience can be quite revealing.

David

SpinyNorman said:

ourself said:

To watch by not watching... To play it out without labeling anything.

Though consciously labelling experience can be quite revealing.

True. And without it, we'd have a hard time expressing our views and experience. However, it adds a lot of unneeded chatter to experience as well.

I don't think I'd kill the watcher but I'd shut it up for a while. Labelling experience while it's happening is like talking during a presentation.

DairyLama

ourself said:

SpinyNorman said:

ourself said:

To watch by not watching... To play it out without labeling anything.

Though consciously labelling experience can be quite revealing.

True. And without it, we'd have a hard time expressing our views and experience. However, it adds a lot of unneeded chatter to experience as well.

I was meaning simple labelling as an aid to mindfulness, eg "walking", "thinking". It's also a way of reducing the unneeded chatter, the continual internal commentary.

Dennis1

Watcher and watched is just a type of internal duality. Pristine Cognition is Non-Dual perception. Realizing the unity of watcher and watched is said to be a one step path to enlightenment. At the least it helps us escape the internal subject/object creative activity. Just a watcher-only me. It is also that self we must rise above (or beyond)
Best

Dennis1

P.S. Some people think the watcher is God and they use that to keep impulses in check.
I think that is just delusion. Best