Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A technical question - mind and awareness.
This is a question that I've been stuck on for a while now, and I'd like some fresh views. Basically, the question is how to separate the ordinary thinking mind from the subtler awareness that we try to come to in meditation.
During meditation we are trying to let the mind come to rest, to free it from the chaotic buzz of thoughts that distract us from direct awareness of what is happening in the moment. We start by focusing on an object of meditation - whatever we want, but for many of us the breath. This helps us to calm the senses and gradually focus our awareness on our single point of concentration.
Buddhist theory regards the mind as the sixth sense-door, and thoughts as the sense-objects that the mind perceives, if I'm not mistaken. Now the first five, even sight and hearing, are usually not especially difficult to calm, but the sixth - thought - is the tricky one.
Whereas the objects of the other five senses are easily distinguished from the faculties of their perception (visual object from sight, sound object from hearing), the objects of the mind are much more intimately tied up with the faculty that perceives them. In a typical non-mindful state, thoughts emerge already tangled up with our sense of self, as part of the mass of thought-forms that make up who we see as "I".
So during meditation, we try to calm the mind. We focus on the breath. We use exercises like counting the breath if our mind wanders. But both of these things are functions of the mind! It seems like a paradox to engage the machine in order to calm the machine. How can we ask the mind to keep running in one little corner while trying to put the whole thing to rest?
It is acknowledged that we'll never be able to calm the mind completely - like the other five sense-objects, thoughts arise whether we want them to or not. But separating awareness, which seems to be seated in the mind, from its greatest distractor - monkey mind - is a problem I can't wrap my head around.
To those of you who got through all that, I look forward to your responses. Please excuse any 'technical errors' in my understanding of buddhist theory, I'm really interested in what you all have to say about the heart of the matter. Thanks!
Scott
During meditation we are trying to let the mind come to rest, to free it from the chaotic buzz of thoughts that distract us from direct awareness of what is happening in the moment. We start by focusing on an object of meditation - whatever we want, but for many of us the breath. This helps us to calm the senses and gradually focus our awareness on our single point of concentration.
Buddhist theory regards the mind as the sixth sense-door, and thoughts as the sense-objects that the mind perceives, if I'm not mistaken. Now the first five, even sight and hearing, are usually not especially difficult to calm, but the sixth - thought - is the tricky one.
Whereas the objects of the other five senses are easily distinguished from the faculties of their perception (visual object from sight, sound object from hearing), the objects of the mind are much more intimately tied up with the faculty that perceives them. In a typical non-mindful state, thoughts emerge already tangled up with our sense of self, as part of the mass of thought-forms that make up who we see as "I".
So during meditation, we try to calm the mind. We focus on the breath. We use exercises like counting the breath if our mind wanders. But both of these things are functions of the mind! It seems like a paradox to engage the machine in order to calm the machine. How can we ask the mind to keep running in one little corner while trying to put the whole thing to rest?
It is acknowledged that we'll never be able to calm the mind completely - like the other five sense-objects, thoughts arise whether we want them to or not. But separating awareness, which seems to be seated in the mind, from its greatest distractor - monkey mind - is a problem I can't wrap my head around.
To those of you who got through all that, I look forward to your responses. Please excuse any 'technical errors' in my understanding of buddhist theory, I'm really interested in what you all have to say about the heart of the matter. Thanks!
Scott
0
Comments
The object is to see the thoughts, accept them and control them, and calm the Mind.
It seems to me that there is a big misconception when it comes to mind that is very widely held to be true. This is the idea that we can find “Awareness” by using the mind. In other words, we think the mind is the proper tool to use in doing this, and that the mind will end up looking directly at “Awareness” like it is simply one more mind object, and finally capture this “Awareness” if, and only if, our mind can get quiet enough.
It is my experience that “Awareness” stands outside of the mind, completely free, and is constantly available or ”Present.” The mind is like a temporary dream within “Awareness” and not the guy in charge of “Awareness” at all.
The reason that we put our mind on an object, for example on the breath, isn’t so much to quiet mind as to keep us from mistakenly using the mind to find “Awareness.” When the mind is completely 100% tied up with the object of concentration, and mind for all do purposes is put on hold in this way, one finally notices “Awareness” is right there all of the time…or backs into “Awareness,” away from mind, and takes his rightful seat.
In other words, we completely dis-identify with mind and her multiple worlds.
Once you personally taste of this “Awareness as Being” and not just one more adjective to explain your ego-self, mind can no longer pull the wool over your eyes. You finally understand completely that “Awareness” isn’t something you do, some mental trick.
“Awareness” is the only “Constant.”
“Awareness” is your “Original Buddha Nature.”
Peace and love,
S9
Think of it like this. A practical outcome of meditation with breath awareness is the cultivation/improvement of 2 skills. Concentration and mindfulness.
Monkeymind or the restless, agitated state of the mind is due to lack of concentration. Mindfulness (awareness) makes us aware that our mind is in chaos and does whatever it wishes despite our not wishing it to.
So, we use mindfulness to notice the chaotic state of affairs in our mind and we use concentration to quiet the chaos down so that we can pin mindfulness where we want it to be: On the present moment.
Does that help or just confuse?
For instance: you are meditating, focusing on the breath... Suddenly, a thought enters: "I want ice cream".. You catch it and label it: "this is craving".. but as soon as you do that, the thought of ice cream deflates, stops in time, as if the hand has been pulled from that puppet in order to animate the one about labeling.. It's like there is only one actor, constantly switching between playing different roles - yet, all along something is able to perceive this theater (and record it in short-term and long-term memory), like a spectator. This "spectator" - is it the same as Subjectivity9's "Awareness"?
S9, I see how that misconception could arise - we talk so much about awareness as an object that we forget that it is not something separate from our selves. The way I conceptualize it is that awareness is not something to be looked at or found, but that it is our most basic perceptive essence, the "I" that does the looking. Mind is the interface, the workshop and tool that we use to process the world. The problem is, the mind is so out of control that it has us (our awareness) completely engrossed and sedated. The question to me is, does awareness come from the mind? Is it a function of the mind, and if so, how do we calm the mind while keeping the awareness alert?
Like Federica said, the goal is not to eliminate thoughts but to be aware of them and accept them. But, like Unlikelybdst said, efforts toward mindfulness can all too easily become a circle chase of thoughts about thoughts about thoughts. When I notice my mind doing this during meditation, I try to tell myself: "don't pay "NO" attention to the thoughts, but "YES" attention to the breath". In other words, it is futile to think about not thinking, and one way out is to direct the attention to something not of the mind. This seems to suggest that awareness is not a function of the mind, but is the spectator.
If that's the case - if awareness is something not of the mind - then I guess the issue is simply buckling down and doing the tedious, painstaking work of separating the two. Or, more correctly, of rediscovering our pure awareness as separate from the maniacal one-man theater troupe that has tried its best to meld itself with its audience, and then taming that wild thing. That's hard work.
Scott
It is futile to think about anything when you are supposed to be just breathing.
I like to think of it this way, and have explained it to people before this way. It isn't perfect, but it kind of works.
The the awareness of a mindful meditator sees a car (thinks a thought), realizes "There goes a car" and lets it go. The car is real, the car passing by is real, but it doesn't matter once it's gone because it's no longer there. Awareness doesn't cling, just lets it go, and remains in the moment.
The awareness of an unmindful meditator sees a car, thinks "Look, car!", and chases after it like a dog. Woof! :P
Breathing meditation is great because it gives the anxious/clinging mind something neutral and empty of any attachment-concept to cling to. I have anxiety issues and so I like to keep it simple; focusing on the breathing means that my mind doesn't start chasing after the 'what if' thought-cars that my anxiety likes to occupy itself with, but since people meditate for different reasons, your mileage will vary.
Jali
How does wisdom arise? The first and more fundamental obstacle to wisdom is the illusion of duality which is linked to the illusion of solidity of a subject. With the illusion of a subject and an object, the mind gets lost in the objects, this is usually called distractions, whether inner distractions (thoughts) or external distractions (phenomenon).
At the first stage of meditation, one allows distractions to arise and fade. But one keeps mindfulness and stops following the distractions. So the main point is don't be distracted, let the thoughts arise but don't be distracted. Don't follow the stories in the mind.
Second stage, one will slowly disintegrate or see-through the illusion of duality... and as this deepens, one will arrive back at pure timeless awareness, free from all solidity of subject, duality and fixation. Thus wisdom arises.
Basically meditation should be learnt properly from an experienced teacher. Or else, there are alot of subtle points that will be missed or one will be wasting alot of time. It may take decades to get anywhere in meditation, so if one is wasting years of one's time doing something without proper guidance and maybe going into deeper delusion rather than enlightenment, then it is a pity, cos there are many meditators who are trapped in meditations that will not produce insights or liberation in the end.
Hi S9,
I appreciate your viewpoint. From my understanding, Awareness cannot be found outside mind, it cannot be found inside mind. In fact, when one examines where mind is, one can't find it either. But for convenience of terminology, awareness = 'knowingness' = a part of mind's function.
Beingness is still a beginning point on the path of insight. Buddhism talks about non-self or egolessness. Beingness still has the element of solidity of a being. It is like the Witness or Higher Self. There is still a subtle fixation or subtle duality, so to speak. If there is Beingness, who witnesses Beingness. Is Beingness witnessing Beingness itself? If that is the case, who witnesses that witnessing?
Non-self is the fundamental tenet of Buddhism, while Beingness is still more at the point of Higher Self or Atman of Hinduism. It is often confused with awareness. Pure nondual timeless awareness as Buddha nature as you put it is beyond any fixation or solidity of subject or duality. It is groundless and the total deconstruction of all concepts.
As words often fail to convey meaning... i may have misunderstood your meaning... but it's ok, cos i just wanted to bring this up for reference sake.
<CITE>www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/3_teach.pdf</CITE>
<CITE></CITE>
<CITE></CITE>
I am only guessing here,but I would think that eventually you could stop noting.
I am far from that stage myself,but right now noting is a tool that helps me in my practise.
Thank you for you fine reply. It was excellent.
Yes, when we get to the place where we are speaking about the last vestige of individual mind, (AKA The Witness), it may be very easy to get confused on this issue. Or even when in total agreement on the subject, because of personal word preferences, to speak past each other. I believe this is because you cannot actually verbalize Ultimate Truth, but can mere dance around it by use of words.
You are quite right in that Awareness is not actually found outside of mind as being separate, because the second you say something is separate than you start to flounder into dualism. I believe it is more like anything that the mind can ever know is only a partial truth, at best. Mind understands in an either-or situation like yin/yang. The whole concept of separation is an original confusion.
I see it more like this: There is Original Mind (or what I call Being) and temporary mind is superimposed on top of this Original Mind. Temporary mind is only a partial view of the whole. But, please let me be clear on this. Original Mind is neither individual, nor is it oceanic, nor is it like so many Buddhist imagine emptiness. It has been said that it is "empty of emptiness"…a very tricky thing to understand. Does this perhaps mean that it is full, but certainly not full of mind objects or concepts? In that case, even 'One' would be too much, and yet at the same time, ‘not-One’ would be incorrect also.
When Bodhidharma was asked, (after 100% enlightenment), who he was, he said, “I have absolutely no idea.” I don’t think he was saying that He wasn’t actually enlightened after all, or had not arrived at any kind of clarity of vision, if you will. I believe he was saying that mind actually never knows completely, or can capture in words, what he was completely sure of on some level. What some have call the “Don’t know mind,” very real in a more experiential way.
When Buddhism speaks of the "non-self," I believe it is referring to the non-individual/objective self. If you go too far with this into nihilism, you may find yourself describing death and not actually what the Buddha himself came across, which was very much alive.
I do agree that this is not found by looking in or look out. Looking in any direction is traveling away. We are in search of the non-abiding. In other words, I isn’t a place, nor is it in a place.
We are not looking for freedom of the mind either. It is more like freedom from identifying with the mind. Like you say, ”What is looking at the looking?” (AKA what is looking at the Witness Mind). Like I said previously, "We back into this," by peeling off what mind thinks it knows.
Seems almost like a riddle at this point. Yet, Clarity without an object is very ‘Real.’
Objectless Clarity?
Perhaps, as with Zen, it is by tying our mind in knots that we finally see beyond the prison of mind as tool, at least on this subject.
Do you think that perhaps Awareness at some point isn’t 'awareness of', is more like a dimension of the non-separate, or Pure Isness?
Peace and love,
S9
Sri Nisargadatta Mahara, is certainly a great words-smith, perhaps one of the best, and that particular book (I Am That) is one of his best.
But have you noticed that, unless you are personally aware of what he is speaking (intimately), or can check with your own personal experience in that area in order to see what he is getting at, very often one can mis-comprehend the purport even within his words, due to an incomplete understanding, and than go on to confuse their meanings by fitting them into previous mind-sets? It is only with clarity that we can look back and see ourselves doing just this.
What I have found to be true, when reading these persons who have gone before us, and those who with great compassion have mapped out the area of “IS” in some detail, is that when you personal arrive at that very same place, it is more quickly obvious where you are or what you are seeing, if you will. It saves a lot of reinventing the wheel, making for a sure footed-ness, simply not there for us when we travel uninformed.
There are even a number of persons who end up in mental hospitals fearing that they have falling of the edge of sanity, when in fact they are having profound spiritual insights, and have not been blessed with information in this spiritual area previous to these events. This is why we must plant the seeds for ourselves, and others, and allow them to grow in their own sweet time, not becoming easily discouraged when others are not quite ready for what is being said.
Isn’t this why the Buddha so wisely suggested that 1/3 of this journey should certainly be community, or a sharing?
I know that I personally am eternally grateful to those who have gone before, and taken the time to reach forward to me in multiple ways, scattering jewels as they went along.
Of course now I see that, these truths were being shouted from the roof tops and are everywhere like tiny diamonds scattered through every culture, multiple books, various philosophies, and all of the arts, etc., and we blinded by personal opinion have constantly waded through it, up to our hips, not seeing.
Peace and love,
S9
mistaking borrowed knowledge for acquired knowledge, a trap we all fall into from time to time, yes? it's so easy ... you hear something, it resonates for you, feels right, and lickety-split you call it "yours" ... even if it's conjecture.
i sometimes "try things on for size." if they resonate, i try seeing the world through that new lens for a while to determine if it jibes with my experience.
Quite so, if knowledge can't walk the walk, very often it is just words playing around in our mind...but having no reality.
However, even they may have useful meaning later, like seeds arriving in the winter.
I like to use mistaken views to stimulate me in a direction of "What than is true?" In that way I find, nothing is wasted, much like a compost heap.
Peace and Love,
S9
BA: My main purpose in replying to your thread is to distinguish the practice of "I-AM" aka Eternal Witness/Atman/God/Cosmic Awareness/Source from the unique Buddhist view of non-self or anatta and emptiness.
S9: It is not unusual for persons very far along in their practice to misunderstand the “I Am,” as being the Eternal Witness (aka the last vestiges of the mind.) This is because all words fall short and appear to objectify whatever is being pointed out.
But I think you will have to admit that emptiness, even if we say empty of empty, can easily give the wrong impression too.
So in the end, until we reach the vital moment when we finally “Wake Up,” as the Buddha did, all we have is our keen intention to know the Unknowable. Just see how all of our words jump around in circles. We must remain mentally flexible as to what we think we know. So often real insights prove to be so much more than what we were previously chasing after.
Does this mean that we should give up words altogether than, as a lost cause, as I have heard so many Buddhists say? I think not, because words are a very good tool for bringing us to that place where we can finally jump free.
But please, do not think that when I say “I Am” or any such thing as that, like Pure Consciousness or Awareness that it is in my mind synonymous with the Witness. Even the most highly advanced Hindus do not actually see it this way.
The Witness is a highly objectified part of the mind, mind being capable of seemingly splitting off from its self, and the Witness is in no way ‘Eternal.’ The Witness is just one of the modes of mind.
“I Am” is simply one more name for “Pure Awareness, or Eternal Presence. Names or labels, although convenient and useful are not the Actuality or the Real.
No individual person, body, or mind is eternal…they all come and go. So in no way is “Pure Awareness just one more clever disguise for our ego self or part of something, even the mind.
I personally feel that words “no-self” are a poor substitute for “Pure Awareness”…but that is simply a thing of taste or preference. Contemplation does not arrive at a negative.
If we are at a place where we are not yet Awake, is there actually any word that cannot cause some confusion? All words stop short of the mark. But when we finally see for ourselves (intimately) what these wise sages have been pointing at over the centuries, then confusion becomes a thing of the past.
Yet we may still find ourselves thinking, “Gee, what words will work best on this occasion, and with a particular person, in order to clear his vision and create the garden in his mind for an insight to flower?
BA: Although it is not possible to conceptualize ultimate truth and put it definitively in words, it is however possible, I think, to get a feel of the person's understanding through his words and responses.
S9: Only if you yourself are at where this person is, or further along, will you gain the whole of what he is saying or see where he is coming from. They may easily be saying one thing, and you can be hearing another thing. Then based upon what you personally believe they said, you will go on to make a judgment.
How many people to you think actually hear with any great clarity exactly what the Buddha is saying? Only when you are able to look right where He is pointing will you escape even his words, (Aka looking at his “finger pointing.”)
BA: A skilled genuine master with realization can do that during Satsang/Interviews... it is impossible to communicate without conveying our mental blind spots to someone who is free from them.
S9: Although we all have blind spots, we do not share the exact same blind spots with each other, ours will be different blind spots, and so we can be helpful to each other in Satsang. If we all needed to rely on speaking only with the enlightened masters, these poor fellows would certainly be spread mighty thin.
Also there would be a big problem in knowing who is in fact enlightened…how could we judge this without real personal clarity?
BA: Awareness cannot be found anywhere...
S9: Certainly not with the mind, as the Awareness I speak of isn’t within time or space and cannot be objectified.
BA: I have to disagree with you on calling "Original Mind" as "Being"... in Buddhism, "Original Mind" equates the realization of emptiness, prajna wisdom, or one could say "Buddha Nature"...
S9: To me Being is synonymous with Buddha Nature or even dis-identification with mind stuff. Sometimes I think some Buddhist think that Buddha Nature means “Just so no.” But than wouldn’t ‘the big “No” in the sky’ (kind of a negative deity) simply be a mental object, albeit a negative conceptual object?
BA: "Being" still has the subtle connotation of some eternal existent self, even in non-dual non-separation experiences where there is no subject or object, one can still be fixated subtly on the subject...
S9: Yes, indeed, the subject of no subject. Words are certainly a prison. That is why we are advised to go beyond words. More like a ‘Clarity of Experience," what some call Presence…but unlike the witness, Presence is not present to anything, except Presence...only “Presence to Presence” or what the Christian’s have said, “I am that I Am.” It is Pure Essence or Pure Potential, yet in no way an object or a deity…”Isness,” pure and simple.
See the many dizzy circles; dancing around what cannot be said.
Mind is only a porthole for viewing the “Wholeness.” Wholeness is a Gestalt, so much more than the some of its parts and not a mere jigsaw puzzle of unity.
I am going to stop here as not to answer in exhaustive detail, although your wonderful post certainly merits it.
Peace and love,
S9
At this stage I wouldn't worry about what constitutes mind or awareness. In most cases settling the mind is more important initially. A book that I have specifies the nine levels of mental stabilisation, I have just done a web search and found it here in the Berzin Archives http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level2_lamrim/advanced_scope/concentration/achieving_shamatha.html look 3/4 of the way down the page to "The Nine Stages of Settling the Mind".
In fact looking at the page I have linked above leaves me thinking that all your answers may well lie there. Have a read if time permits and see if that helps.
Cheers, WK