matt
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by matt on May 28, 2010 21:33:22 GMT -5
I would like to start a thread about ‘watching the mind’. I keep coming back to using this approach (or ‘method’ or ‘technique’) and I find myself receding into that elusive “I AM” or ‘resting as awareness'. I would really be interested in hearing anyone else’s feedback on their experiences with watching the mind. Watching the Mind - Hubert Benoit 1. Alone, in a quiet place, muscularly relaxed (lying down or comfortably seated), I watch the emergence within myself of mental images, permitting my imagination to produce whatever it likes. It is as though I were saying to my image-making mind, 'Do what you please; but I am going to watch you doing it.' 2. As long as one maintains this attitude – or, more exactly, this relaxation of any kind of attitude – the imagination produces nothing and its screen remains blank, free of all images. I am then in a state of pure voluntary attention, without any image to capture it. I am not paying attention to anything in particular; I am paying attention to anything which might turn up, but which in fact does not turn up. 3. As soon as there is a weakening of my voluntary effort of pure attention, thoughts (images) make their appearance. I do not notice the fact immediately, for my attention is momentarily asleep; but after a certain time I perceive what has happened. I discover that I have started to think of this and that. The moment I make this discovery, I say to my imagination, 'So you want to talk to me about that. Go ahead; I'm listening.' Immediately everything stops again, and I become conscious of the stoppage. At first the moments of pure attention are short. (Little by little, however, they tend to become longer.) But, though brief, they are not mere infinitesimal instants; they possess a certain duration and continuity. Persevering practice of the exercise gradually builds up a mental automatism which acts as a curb on the natural automatisms of the imagination. This curb is created consciously and voluntarily; but to the extent that the habit has been built up, it acts automatically. Liberation will come – and will come abruptly – only when the construction of the curb is complete and is as strong as the automatisms of the imagination. At that time we may expect the ultimate neutralization which will reconcile man's inner dualism (This is a condensed, edited version I use for my blog. The full article can be found here: www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/bztech.htm ) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 28, 2010 21:54:16 GMT -5
My apologies if Hubert is generally considered 'Awakened'. I don't know of him.
From my perspective, it is mind which watches the mind in this way. That is, mind is occupied with the thought 'I am watching for a thought', and so the thought that is found is this thought of watching, and nothing else. Just as when one is occupied with the flame of a candle or any other thought, all other thoughts are blocked since mind cannot think two thoughts at once.
This is not pure attention, it's simply the concentration on one thought. The nature of this particular thought is such that it can create the illusion that no thought is happening, but as he mentions, when there is "a weakening of my voluntary effort" the other random thoughts appear as they fill the void in the mind's attention.
'Pure attention' is without thought and it is effortless.
Some woo woo states or realizations may come out of any practice applied with devotion, though it is the devotion which brings this about and not the practice as such.
Watching the thoughts is actually thinking. Witnessing the thoughts is to be aware of them without the attempt to either control them, stop them, or chase them around the block. This focus on (effortless) awareness may be more beneficial as opposed to the concentration of mind, only because you are not mind but rather awareness.
|
|
|
|
Post by breezing through on May 28, 2010 22:35:10 GMT -5
Good distinction between "watching" and "being aware". Watching requires movement, which is of the mind and process, while being aware is being the stillness (ironically, that is "doing the watching"). Interestingly, once one Sees as the awareness, the former usually dissipates.
One way to think about it would be like you are actually the light in the projector of a movie and the mind is the real of film (no light, no movement on the screen). The idea is that one is not identified with the separate individual mind, but as That which precedes it. First, just get to the breakthrough of being That. Thus, it may be seen that Awareness precedes/subsumes the mind, and You Are That.
|
|
matt
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by matt on May 29, 2010 9:51:44 GMT -5
Watching the thoughts is actually thinking. Witnessing the thoughts is to be aware of them without the attempt to either control them, stop them, or chase them around the block. This focus on (effortless) awareness may be more beneficial as opposed to the concentration of mind, only because you are not mind but rather awareness. I would like to suggest that we move forward with the understanding that this could be a difference in semantics, between using the words 'watching' and 'witnessing'. If so, how do you suggest or recommend that someone 'witnesses the thoughts'? My personal experience, from what I would characterize as 'watching the mind', is that I do become the neutral observer, not interested in providing energy to stop them nor follow them. I just watch - which, for me, has resulted in a quiet 'beingness' from where I understand that whatever happens, happens... it just is. I also understand, both conceptually and experientially, that any thought - even the thought 'this is nice and quiet' - or absence of thought - still arises as part of 'pure attention'. There is no difference or separation from the 'pure attention'. So, say someone comes to you for help..asking HOW to "witness the thoughts" or how "to be aware of them without the attempt to either control them, stop them..." etc? What do you tell them or what can you offer them? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 29, 2010 19:01:24 GMT -5
Since witnessing is effortless, any 'how to' procedure is a bit problematic, but i would say the willingness to witness the thoughts happens when there is an interest in noticing that they don't have to be 'picked up'. The witnessing is simply the experiential realization of this. Once it becomes very clear, there may not be anymore interest in positioning oneself as the witness, (or watcher or observer) which are really made up positions.
The witness is, itself, known, right? What knows there is witnessing happening?
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on May 29, 2010 19:38:46 GMT -5
What knows there is witnessing happening? I think this is a very important question. If we try to answer it, we come up with an infinite chain of "things" that are aware of other "things." |
|
|
|
Post by breezing through on May 29, 2010 20:24:31 GMT -5
Q for you: What are you trying to do with this understanding of the difference between watching and witnessing? My general reply would be that watching of the mind by the mind begins the anxiety and confusion because there's always more, and thus more questions and possible 'answers'. That's okay, because it is part of the process. But be careful, because remaining as some separate individual with all the answers is what the ego wants. You're not after more questions and answers. Witnessing could be described as (the beginning of and eventual) seeing the illusion of the separate self for what it is, an illusion. The ego, at first, gets disillusioned with this and feels scared. Then you are likely to feel the pains and fear of the process of letting go and unraveling, and the ego and mind step in with all kinds of interesting tactics for maintaining the illusion of control. Most are likely to hang around and drift inbetween watching and witnessing without ever seeing. The breakthrough is a gift ('from' beyond mind), not a rationalization (mind), and you'll know when it happens. No questions. Determination and patience are coming from somewhere. Pay attention.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 29, 2010 23:54:35 GMT -5
What knows there is witnessing happening? I think this is a very important question. If we try to answer it, we come up with an infinite chain of "things" that are aware of other "things." Quite possibly, but the same question can be asked until there is no answer. We want mind to stare directly into the 'face' of the one looking, and see precisely nothing at all. There is nothing to see. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 30, 2010 0:03:01 GMT -5
Q for you: What are you trying to do with this understanding of the difference between watching and witnessing? My general reply would be that watching of the mind by the mind begins the anxiety and confusion because there's always more, and thus more questions and possible 'answers'. That's okay, because it is part of the process. But be careful, because remaining as some separate individual with all the answers is what the ego wants. You're not after more questions and answers. Witnessing could be described as (the beginning of and eventual) seeing the illusion of the separate self for what it is, an illusion. The ego, at first, gets disillusioned with this and feels scared. Then you are likely to feel the pains and fear of the process of letting go and unraveling, and the ego and mind step in with all kinds of interesting tactics for maintaining the illusion of control. Most are likely to hang around and drift inbetween watching and witnessing without ever seeing. The breakthrough is a gift ('from' beyond mind), not a rationalization (mind), and you'll know when it happens. No questions. Determination and patience are coming from somewhere. Pay attention. Yes, i agree. Not sure if the question is addressed to me, but the distinction between watching and witnessing came about because the original post clearly depicted a practice of thinking a thought to watch for thoughts, which is a mind game and does not produce an empty or still mind since it is filled with that singular thought. If there is the desire to not think, not thinking is what will happen. There's just one apparent mind in the apparent person. |
|
|
|
Post by breezing through on May 30, 2010 8:30:32 GMT -5
E: The post was meant for the original questioner, or whoever else for that matter. I agree with your distinctions and insights; just curious about direction of the original question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on May 30, 2010 9:11:32 GMT -5
Quite possibly, but the same question can be asked until there is no answer. We want mind to stare directly into the 'face' of the one looking, and see precisely nothing at all. There is nothing to see. Nice posts, Enigma! Realizing there's an infinite chain of answers can stop the mind and make it 'face' the one looking. Which can not be identified, as you're saying above. On the other hand, if we stop the questioning at something like "a thought is aware of other thoughts", or "the brain is aware of thoughts", or "the soul is aware of thoughts", we may temporarily relax believing that we solved the question. So... who is watching the mind? (the original question of the thread). From my point of view, it would be an unnecessary diversion to consider that thoughts are not material, that they have a different nature than our hands, for example. Thoughts are as material and as real as everything else we experience with our senses. They just "move" faster than most of the other stuff that we sense. The only way to avoid the "infinite chain" is to say that the one asking is the one watching. |
|
|
|
Post by divinity on May 30, 2010 10:53:05 GMT -5
It is the one mind which we truly are which is watching the thoughts/brain waste products in our brains.
|
|
matt
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by matt on May 30, 2010 15:19:54 GMT -5
Q for you: What are you trying to do with this understanding of the difference between watching and witnessing? E: The post was meant for the original questioner, or whoever else for that matter. I agree with your distinctions and insights; just curious about direction of the original question. I myself had never really thought to make any distinction between the words 'watching' and 'witnessing'. I see them as the same. Any difference was made by others, I'm guessing, in reference to Benoit's article. The original intent of the thread was asking for feedback regarding others' experience with 'watching the mind' or 'witnessing the thoughts'. I wasn't necessarily asking for feedback on conceptual differentiations between the two words. But so far I do think that this input is invaluable. I was wondering who else does this to reach the "I AM", and it sounds like at least Enigma does, as his insights described sound like my experiences  . Below are a few quotes, leaning to the Advaita tradition, that have referred to the same instruction of watching the mind. I appreciate everyones input so far. |
|
|
|
Post by breezing through on May 30, 2010 19:39:33 GMT -5
M: Cool. As long as "more obstacles" (from Nisargadatta's quote) aren't being created, in a way the two are rather similar and might even be used interchangeably with a few caveats. The mind is quick, and can not be outsmarted by the mind . The great unlearning. As you mentioned, there are invaluable lessons there for letting go and finding a shift in perspective of what "I" actually is! It might also be noted that Nisargaddata's words were being translated from some language like Mahrati, so there's also the chance of a little ambiguity. What the words point to beyond themselves is what was being gotten at though. If your method/technique/approach for "receding into that elusive 'I AM' or 'resting in awareness'' is working for you, that's great! That's the only thing that matters per se. Do you feel the difference between watching the mind with the mind and witnessing it as described? Once watching/witnessing were better understood, "effortless doing" (wei wu wei) while interacting with people or the environment was as an important part of the process, but that was just this body/mind's experience. See what happens! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 30, 2010 21:31:25 GMT -5
Just to be clear, from my perspective, Niz and Benoit are not talking about the same thing.
|
|
.