Witness/Moller

[Guest guest]

Dear Roger,

 

Thanks for your reply and the insights you have brought to it.

 

This question of assumption or not is really very important. Allow me some

sharing on this one.

 

Moller said:

> the witness position is to realise its ultimate falseness. The witness is

> to be stuck in the last vestage of thought.

 

Roger replied:

 

The witnessing state IS. Your attacks are based on assumption. How could

someone "realize the falseness.." when during witnessing there is absolutly

no volition? You say "next step after the witness position is to realize..."

isn't this an assumption? Weren't we going to dispense with assumptions?

 

~~(M) Let me see if I can find my way into this. While caught in the

reality of thought creations, which appear by themselves, therefore without

volition, we are presented with an incredibaly wide range of unrealities

presenting themselves as reality. This to me is the foundation of

Maya/illusion. And the reason why these are illusions is we are genrally

totally unaware of how they take place. As an example, we can say that we

all have this sense of I-consciousness, separateness as the observer. We

live quite 'naturally' with this self-consciousness, and are genrally only

aware of the 'fact' of it. We are not aware that this separate entity

within, this self or I, is merely a projection of a prior process in

thought. So we base our lives on this presumed or 'assumed' entity with all

the inherent problems associated with it. Now for the uninformed person,

this I seems absolutely solid and real and not an assumption at all for the

reason that such a person has not been sensitised to the possibility that

this 'reality' is just a projection within thought. I, Moller is this

person. You come along and tell me that this 'ghost in the machine' has no

reality other than an assumption of thought. I say to you, in view of the

fact that my 'I' is real to me, who are you to tell me this. It is my

personal and real experience. Surely YOU must be the one having an

assumption about my 'I'. Leave me alone. I am happy where I am, with my

'me' and all.

 

So I guess what I was trying to point to in what I said about the so-called

witness position, is that please don't take your position as final. It

really does not matter if in the end I am wrong about such a statement.

What is of fundamental importance to the true investigator is that he/she

does not take experiences along this path too quickly as some settled

position. I am most certainly not attacking you, Roger. I am calling on

you to keep an open mind even about things which may appear very real along

your path of self-enquiry. We have no true guru's around against whom we

could reflect our understanding and experiences. We have just one another.

That is why I reflect my own experiences so openly on this list in the hope

that someone will be kind enough to tell me if they sense that I may be

missing the mark in things that I say. In this they will be my benefactor

and teacher. Satsangh can only function in this way. In Satsangh we are

here for one another. So please accept my pointing in this light. I am on

your side, for what it may be worth. There will come a time when you will

serve my process. At least go deeply into what I have said, and let's keep

communication going.

 

As for myself, since I received your post, I again tried to reach that

stillness of which I sometimes speak to find out if I was talking non-sense.

But I cannot but repeat that any sense of observer, even it is the Ultimate

observer as witness to all things, has a dualistic nature and I have not yet

come accross anything in myself which has pointed to something different in

sofar as my 'perception' goes that dualism is an assumption.

 

Now that we are here, let me mention something as a side point.

 

This is an impersonal path. What we experience as 'personal' has its roots

in absolutely impersonal processes, generally sub-liminal or unconscious to

our ordinary awareness. Thought dominates our lives, and we suffer and

enjoy the consequences of this, but we are generally totally unaware that we

are thinking per se. We are content dominated. So if we want to

investigate experience through self-awareness or enquiry, we will be well

advised to look at the impersonal processes which bring appearances about.

So to bring this back to your witness position. What is it that makes this

reality possible? There is the observer and the observed. What is it in us

which makes it possible for us to live in duality considering the evidence

from reports by realised beings that this duality is an illusion.

 

So you can see that I am in no way denying you your experience. Iam trying

to point to the possibility that, like the 'I', even this apparent refined

from of separateness, this witness, needs to be investiagted, and if seen

for what it is, transcended for the wholeness of being to be the case.

 

Please look at my most current postings to Dan. I also address the issue

there of the witness. Hope you find it usefu

 

Hand in hand,

 

Love,

Moller

[Guest guest]

> Moller:

> So I guess what I was trying to point to in what I said about the

so-called

> witness position, is that please don't take your position as final.

 

"don't take position as final": When in the state of pure witnessing, there

is no personal "I" to have a position. This witness state is non-varying,

unchanging, untouchable by anything external, independant from all thought,

sense, emotion. Though arises as appropriate, however, the witness is

separate from thought and unstained/uninfluenced by thought.

 

Please tell me: when "I" is known as absolutely unchanging & non-varying,

not associated with thought, or emotion, or sense: HOW can this be less than

final?

 

What are you expecting?

> It

> really does not matter if in the end I am wrong about such a statement.

> What is of fundamental importance to the true investigator is that he/she

> does not take experiences along this path too quickly as some settled

> position.

 

"experience" could be called a memory of some past event. And in that case

"experience" is always a lie cause it's not NOW, it's only a memory.

However, when witnessing, there is a finality which precludes further

seeking. How can one be more "settled" than non-changing, non-varying ??

> I am most certainly not attacking you, Roger.

 

Oh, I didn't mean "attack" in a negative way, I meant it as "challenging a

position": nothing personal! I think you should challenge everything.

> I am calling on

> you to keep an open mind even about things which may appear very real

along

> your path of self-enquiry.

 

I'm calling on you to explain specifically how this witness state I have

been describing is non-final. Your challenge has not not been specific

regarding why I should "keep an open mind". If I don't have a mind, in any

particular moment cause typically the mind is there, then your comment

doesn't have any impact? If I don't have an mind, then you think I should

get one? Ha! And by "mind" I mean the illusion of a doer, identification

with emotion&thought, a 'mind' that claims volition, a mind that worries or

suffers ...

> We have no true guru's around against whom we

> could reflect our understanding and experiences. We have just one

another.

> That is why I reflect my own experiences so openly on this list in the

hope

> that someone will be kind enough to tell me if they sense that I may be

> missing the mark in things that I say. In this they will be my benefactor

> and teacher. Satsangh can only function in this way. In Satsangh we are

> here for one another. So please accept my pointing in this light. I am

on

> your side, for what it may be worth.

 

"on your side": the only "side" worth investing in is Truth.

 

<snip>

> As for myself, since I received your post, I again tried to reach that

> stillness of which I sometimes speak to find out if I was talking

non-sense.

 

"find out if I was talking nonsense"... Ha! I resemble that remark!

> But I cannot but repeat that any sense of observer, even it is the

Ultimate

> observer as witness to all things, has a dualistic nature and I have not

yet

> come accross anything in myself which has pointed to something different

in

> sofar as my 'perception' goes that dualism is an assumption.

 

My experience is this: the totally free, unbound, non-wavering, non-changing

witness state exists, even if only momentarily in my case.

 

This state is non-dual in the sense that "I" am non-dual, "I" am no longer

associated with the field of opposites or field of change. HOWEVER, this

can't be the ultimate state of non-duality, because "the other" or that

which is observed is not perceived as myself. If that were the case, then

there would be literal oneness, and that's not my experience, yet.

> Now that we are here, let me mention something as a side point.

>

> This is an impersonal path. What we experience as 'personal' has its

roots

> in absolutely impersonal processes, generally sub-liminal or unconscious

to

> our ordinary awareness. Thought dominates our lives, and we suffer and

> enjoy the consequences of this, but we are generally totally unaware that

we

> are thinking per se.

 

Perhaps it'll be more accurate for you to say "thought dominates MY life",

or "thought dominates the lives of most of us". Although your statement is

typically correct for me. There are gaps in this illusion, and for NOW, if

we limit the description to NOW, then certainly the influence of thought can

be limited by willing stillness in this moment, given this power to still

thought I'd say it no longer "dominates" although it may still typically

have the foreground.

> We are content dominated. So if we want to

> investigate experience through self-awareness or enquiry, we will be well

> advised to look at the impersonal processes which bring appearances about.

> So to bring this back to your witness position. What is it that makes

this

> reality possible? There is the observer and the observed. What is it in

us

> which makes it possible for us to live in duality considering the

evidence

> from reports by realised beings that this duality is an illusion.

>

> So you can see that I am in no way denying you your experience. Iam

trying

> to point to the possibility that, like the 'I', even this apparent refined

> from of separateness, this witness, needs to be investiagted, and if seen

> for what it is, transcended for the wholeness of being to be the case.

 

I am not "established" as the permanent "witness". However, it seems to me

that once the witness is established, then any "investigation" is of an

entirely different order than ordinary volition or seeking, because in the

"witness" state the seeker has died.

 

thanks,

Roger

www.newu.org

[Guest guest]

Hi Moller,

 

Regarding witnessing:

 

Anytime & all times, go around the body with attention releasing tension,

then:

 

While speaking or listening is there a separation such that the processes of

speaking & listening are observed from a distance without involvement?

 

While driving the car, or any other time, shoulders dropped, muscles

relaxed, is there the sense that one's arms/hands no longer have weight?

 

While looking into a mirror, are you the face as normally believed, or is

there the sense that you are separate from the face?

 

While walking, fix the eyes on a point & leave them there, let the breath be

still & effortless, who is doing the walking? Motion continues, the sound of

feet striking, but are you involved?

 

While hiking in nature, be fulling into all the senses not knowing what

sound/sight/taste/smell/touch the next step will reveal, being fully into

the senses means being out of mind/emotion & totally alert, non-thinking.

 

Always while doing anything: put attention on the heart/solar plexus, listen

from there, speak from there, what is the feeling there? An invigorating

energy arises from there? Spontaneously the body relaxes, attention focuses

& independance arises?

 

see Barry Longs work www.barrylong.org.uk

 

Roger

[Guest guest]

Dear Roger,

 

I really appreciate your passion for truth. This is indeed a rare and

beautiful quality to come accross even on this fleeting stage of cyberspace.

Perhaps we have this in common.

 

You keep asking deep and penetrating questions and keep making deep and

penetrating statements. The medium we use for communication is very

difficult, so allow for a little space of not reaching each other

ultimately. I am sure the intention is there.

 

I will try to take your posting bit by bit to see what sense I could add to

it, if any.

 

Roger:

>"experience" could be called a memory of some past event. And in that case

>"experience" is always a lie cause it's not NOW, it's only a memory.

>However, when witnessing, there is a finality which precludes further

>seeking. How can one be more "settled" than non-changing, non-varying ??

 

~~(M) Language could be a problem here. The way I have sensed the use of

the word experience is that it implies an experiencer. An experience is

generally something some'-one' has. Like 'I' am conscious of some thing,

sensation, thought and so on. memory may well record such an experience,

which, as you have correctly stated, then becomes another experience in view

of the fact that there is in ordinary 'experience' the sense of an

experiencer.

 

You then ask

 

<How can one be more "settled" than non-changing, non-varying ??

 

and later again:

 

<>This state is non-dual in the sense that "I" am non-dual, "I" am no

longer

>associated with the field of opposites or field of change.

 

~~(M) You then seem to answer your own question by saying, or, if you will

allow me, perhaps even contradicting yourself somewhat by saying:

 

HOWEVER, this

>can't be the ultimate state of non-duality, because "the other" or that

>which is observed is not perceived as myself. If that were the case, then

>there would be literal oneness, and that's not my experience, yet.

>

 

~~(M) This is where our notions flow together and what I was trying to point

to. To my understanding, the only 'thing' which can be more settled that

the witness posiiton you have described is this inclusion of 'the other'

(which is then seen to have been not separate from the start) And one may

have to point to the possibility that, however non-dual, your witness

position could have felt at the time, almost by definition it could not have

included that from which it presumed itself to be separate as functional

witness. And whereas the 'I' as witness might sense its non-changing,

ultimate stability, with the 'inclusion' of the 'other' the whole thing

becomes a unfathomable, mysterious ONGOING and EVER CHANGING movement of

appearances. Nothing can be said about it other than that it is non-dual

and ever changing.

 

It seems to me that the above may address to some measure your statement:

>I'm calling on you to explain specifically how this witness state I have

>been describing is non-final.

 

~~(M) But for a little clarity. Allow me just to say that it is non-final,

by your own admission. This is beautiful. And on this we agree. It is

non-final because it is not all inclusive. My original suggestion was that

you find out for yourself what is the factor in the witness consciousness

position which gives it the appearance of not being whole. I suggested it

is a presumption in thought. Nothing IN REALITY is dual. Whatever presents

itself as dualistic, must therefore be false. It is not that the witness

position as such is false. What i am trying to suggest is that the

falseness arises when its ultimate separateness from the 'other' is presumed

or believed. And I suggested that this believe has the origin of all other

beliefs, which is thought. Of course it may be something else. But if

truth is whole, then that which assumes separateness must be false, or

untruth. This is for you and me to find out. What is the factor in the

witness position which gives it the appearance of separateness, while in

fact it is already part of non-dual, present arising?

 

In appreciation,

 

Moller.

 

PS. All the quotes from Barry Long to my understanding have the same fate

as your position. It describes the classical neti-neti way, which I regard

as a dangerous teaching because it presumes from the start that there is

something to be found, just take all appearances away, and it will be there.

This presumption will become a self-fulfilling reality, leaving the seeker

with this presumed 'I' which is then equated with the Self. But we could go

into this at another time if you like.

 

Your brother in the Dharma

[Guest guest]

> You then ask

>

> <r: How can one be more "settled" than non-changing, non-varying ??

>

> and later again:

>

> <> r:This state is non-dual in the sense that "I" am non-dual, "I"

am no

longer

> >associated with the field of opposites or field of change.

>

> ~~(M) You then seem to answer your own question by saying, or, if you

will

> allow me, perhaps even contradicting yourself somewhat by saying:

>

> r: HOWEVER, this

> >can't be the ultimate state of non-duality, because "the other" or that

> >which is observed is not perceived as myself. If that were the case, then

> >there would be literal oneness, and that's not my experience, yet.

 

Yes it's contradictory: There can be nothing more settled (presumptively)

than the witness. "Settled" only has meaning for ordinary waking

consciousnesses where there is a doer and volition and there is an

appearance of one who suffers.

 

"One who suffers" no longer exists in the witness state. You can't get

anymore "settled" than to be free of identification with the body, free of

identification with anything. When suffering is impossible, then one can't

be unsettled. !?

> ~~(M) This is where our notions flow together and what I was trying to

point

> to. To my understanding, the only 'thing' which can be more settled that

> the witness posiiton you have described is this inclusion of 'the

other'

> (which is then seen to have been not separate from the start)

 

r: It seems inclusion of the other has nothing to do with ordinary volition

because the witness is beyond volition.

 

<snip>

 

Let's take up this conversation when we both get back from vacation if you

want, which for me will be April 3rd.

 

In summary: from my perspective, the witness state is all that I can seek

for. Seeking (neti-neti for me) ends in stillness, witnessing may arise from

stillness. In witnessing, I AM, I am free from duality, yet another subtle

duality continues because there is "the other", the other meaning that which

is seen by the witness.

 

Intellectually, I can imagine a state of oneness where the witness & the

other are united. Yet, the act of imagination or speculation about this

ultimate non-duality takes me out of the present, takes me away from the

stillness which is the whole essence of my current practice.

 

Perhaps the most useful possibility for this conversation is this: no

thought is real, the mind can not think about anything real, thought is

always removed from reality. Therefore, thoughts about non-duality are very

limited: if the disease of thought continues, seek help! Thoughts about

nonduality are probably just unproductive mood making. About the only useful

thought I've ever had about nonduality is: "I'm not nondual, be still now".

 

Roger