This book can also be considered a user guide or “missing manual” to my own Standing as Awareness. This book consists of a set of experiments, with explanatory text. The book’s purpose is to deeply investigate many different aspects of experience, including sensation, perception, bodily feeling and motion, waking and sleeping, emotion, attention, thought, rationality, and the sense of being a single, global, unlimited witness of all that arises. What we discover in every case is that there are actually no independent objects experienced at any time. There is never any separation or otherness, but simply love, openness, clarity, sweetness, awareness – in short, your true nature itself. This approach is often called a “tattvopadesha,” a sequential, logically connected presentation of the teaching from beginning to end.
In everyday terms, the goal of inquiry in the Direct Path is to integrate the head and the heart in unity. In this unity, knowledge and love are flipsides on a 45 rpm record of infinite thinness. Knowledge is love distilled by clarity. Love is knowledge pervaded by sweetness. In this clarity there is no cold intellectualizing or blind sentimentality.
Love helps your understanding like this: when you do devotional or bhakti-yoga activities, your heart opens and the realizations in your inquiry are smoother and easier. There are fewer sticking points along the way, and it seems like less “work.” All experience becomes more savory and fragrant. Inquiry opens your heart and broadens your love like this: when you do inquiry, something uncanny happens to the object of your love. It stops seeming like a distinct object whether gross or subtle. It is not experienced as different from you, and it begins to spread out and become everything.
What happens through nondual inquiry is that you come experientially to realize the truth of yourself as awareness, brilliant clarity and global love, in which there is neither suffering nor personhood.
Because nondual inquiry does not seek to improve the person, it has no quarrel with conventional therapies. The goals are different. Modalities such as psychiatry and psychotherapy seek to improve the person through techniques that engender a healthy, flourishing person.
One can combine nondual inquiry with any of these activities. Of course, nondualism submits the notion of the “person” to radical scrutiny, but this does not mean that one must stop going to the dentist. One can very well participate in these other activities without taking their goals and models as literal, objective truths. In many cases, each activity helps the other.
The Main Problem The main problem that self-inquiry addresses is what Nitya Tripta’s Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda calls “wrong identification.” In other words, we take ourselves to be something we’re not. We think, feel and act as though we are a body or a mind or a combination of both, whereas the truth is that we are awareness. It normally seems as though we are some sort of particular object, whereas we are actually the witnessing awareness to which these objects appear. We are not the objects seen, but the seeingness itself.
Awareness is the subject but we treat it as an object, such as when we think that awareness can be seen or localized or personalized. On the other hand, we treat (some) objects as though they are the subject, such as when we think that a body or mind can see or apprehend. It is inevitable that this mix-up leads to suffering. Even though we are awareness, if we take ourselves as some kind of object like a body or mind, then we feel limited, impermanent and vulnerable. We feel we can disappear like other objects. Our pleasures, passions and possessions are temporary and doomed to vanish or fade away. Our lives as humans seem all too short. We seem bound to suffer bad fortune, guilt, shame,
But awareness, our true nature, isn’t limited, personal, impermanent or temporary. It is THAT to which objects (even universes) appear. It is THAT in which they arise and fall. The person is an object, so the person comes and goes. Awareness can’t come and go since it is THAT to which coming-and-going appears! There is no fear or suffering here. Your investigation into your direct experience will…
The Direct Path’s Solution The solution to wrong identification is “right identifi cation.”2 Right identification is basically “no identification.” As awareness we don’t need to think that we are anything at all. The very need for thinking we are something…
It seems like a new identification in place of the old one. This is quite natural, and it can even seem like putting on a new and strange new suit of clothes. But this sense of strangeness diminishes; nondual teachings give us lots of different kinds of pointers that allow us to discover how being awareness is not new or strange at all, but perfectly natural. You get to the point where there is direct, intuitive, nonconceptual experience of being awareness. When this is deeply and directly seen, it cuts through identification with objects. It short-circuits the mutual superimposition and wrong identifications. Once you know yourself as awareness, there is no need to take…
Standing as awareness isn’t even…
your natural state, and when this is directly seen, the world of experience will lovingly and smilingly…
How Does The Direct Path Work? There are many ways that Direct Path teachers point to your nature as awareness. The primary tool is direct investigation into your experience. This is a general category which can have many entry points. Besides standing as awareness, they include: Investigating the world, body and mind; the result is that they are revealed as awareness and not as objects at all. Investigating deep sleep and sleeping knowingly. Investigating the witness aspect of experience. Cultivating…
Direct experience, on the other hand, is the experience of something that is not interpreted or mediated by something else. In experiencing the “apple,” we directly experience a red color, a crisp texture, a tangy flavor, etc. The experience of Bali is the same – what is given directly to experience is sensations, thoughts and feelings. We call them “Bali.” The label is an interpretation. And yet we’ll come to find out that direct experience is actually simpler than this. We discover that in direct experience there are actually no objects at all, and nothing pointing to any objects.
The Approach Taken Here This book involves several different approaches. Standing as awareness, knowingly occupying and inhabiting your true identity, and experiencing the resulting confirmation of your stand. Simple remembrance that the body, mind and world are awareness as well. When we conceptualize them as independent objects, of course, they seem to come and go. And even then, if they come and go, the coming and going is taking place within awareness, which is the common factor. Body, mind and world are inseparable from awareness and are never experiences without awareness already being front and center in the picture. This can be experienced at any time if you just stop and try to find an object, any object that is apart from awareness. Abiding in the simple sweetness of being awareness, which is limitless and borderless. This is also something that is available at any time if you stop and notice. The stopping and noticing, of course, won’t be there all the time, but the beautiful truth they indicate is always the case. But mostly, this book will proceed as what Advaita-Vedanta calls “tattvopadesha.”
But the sorts of experiences we’ll look into include the following: Physical objects, which are usually taken to be the textbook definition of reality. The senses, which are thought to be the neutral and transparent gateways to the world of physical reality. The body, including the brain, which is usually thought to be the container of the mind. The mind, which is usually thought to be the container of consciousness. Events, which are sort of like states of affairs, but with change and movement. Mental states, including emotional and meditative states, which all too often are experienced as more real than the ground we walk on. Subtle abstract objects such as cause and effect, identity and difference, time and space, subject and object. These subtle objects are often thought to provide a structure or organization to consciousness. We will see how consciousness cannot possibly be structured or organized by anything. Witnessing awareness, which starts out seeming like a big mind, complete with individuality, memory and psychological reactivity. But as our investigation continues, witnessing awareness comes to be understood as not possessing any personal, mental or psychological characteristics at all. Instead, it is realized that witnessing awareness is global clarity, and is what all characteristics appear to. Pure consciousness, which is consciousness without the witnessing aspect.
Separation – The False Claim Of Objectivity
Things seem to exist on their own, without depending on awareness in any way. Things seem to exist objectively. No matter how concrete or abstract something is, it seems to exist in this way. The Great Wall of China, differential calculus and moral correctness may not all be physical, but they seem to really exist independently from the mind and independently from awareness.
Freedom From Objectivity AND Subjectivity
When we investigate objectivity and discover that it is not to be found, we do not fall into its opposite. We do not fall into subjectivity or solipsism. Instead, we become free from this pair of opposites. Nondual experience is neither objective nor subjective. Rather, what happens is freedom from the very structures that permit this distinction. We become free of its network of limiting assumptions, perceptions and feelings, along with the images of entrapment, containment and separation from people and objects.
The strong sense of these gaps causes great anxiety and suffering. The feeling that we are cut off, along with the ever-present possibility of being wrong about everything and everyone, creates alienation from the world, from other people and even from ourselves. But our investigation will reveal in the most direct way that objectivity is false. We will see that no matter what kind of object is involved, objectivity is simply never our experience. The belief in objectivity and separation is simply unfounded. When this is deeply understood, partly due to the investigations we will undertake in this book, the misleading sense of objectivity will be seen as false and will eventually vanish. The entire structure that seems to keep us separate collapses, along with all suffering. Without the sense of objectivity, there will be no sense of separation. All of the related dualisms and their attendant feelings of being split simply fall away. You will no longer seem to be separate from the world, other people or your own thoughts and feelings. You won’t feel divided between thinking versus feeling. There will be no “out there” or “in here.” You will not feel like a thinker or feeler or doer. You will realize your identity as the wholeness of all that is. This wholeness is experienced as love, peace and sweetness.
A Note About Terminology
In the Direct Path, the terms “awareness” and “consciousness” are synonyms. Neither one is more basic than the other, and there is nothing more basic or primordial that is “prior” to consciousness. The term “awareness” tends to be used when objects are being discussed, and “consciousness” tends to be used when the collapse of the witness is discussed.
And what is awareness? Descriptive terms can be philosophical or poetic, including: the ground of all being, THAT which everything is appeared to, the witness, the unseen seer, love, beauty, sweetness, being, clarity, reality, self-luminosity and peace.
Who Realizes? Who Is Writing This?
If you do feel the “who realizes” question very strongly, you will probably feel its force diminish to zero as you go through the inquiry.
Part 1 – World
The world is the collection of all objects. We feel that the world is out there and that we are in here. This is our basic sense of separation.
When we hear someone say, “It is all the Self” or “Awareness is all there is,” we immediately think of those rocks and trees. Maybe bridges, skyscrapers and computers as well. How can these things be awareness? We often think of awareness as soft, penetrable and lighter than air. But physical objects seem to be hard, resistant, heavy and impenetrable – except with tools even harder than they are.
But what does our direct experience have to say about these things? We will investigate these things directly, and ask ourselves questions such as: Is awareness really something big and soft? Is a rock really something that possesses hardness within itself? Is a tree really something other than myself?
If something is really the case, then experience should be able to prove it.
Most of our suffering is based on the presumption that the mind, body and world are all separate and independent from each other, and independent from being seen, witnessed and known. We are fearful, shocked, indignant and even outraged if one of these aspects of reality changes suddenly or comes to an end.
We feel that things exist independently, separately from awareness, and that they are really, truly there.
Our Strategy – Trying To Validate Objectivity
In order to tune in to our investigations, we will first examine the claims of objectivity and separation more closely. What exactly is being claimed? Then we will examine these supposedly separate objects in extreme close focus. We will investigate objects using the most direct and definitive evidence we have: our senses.
What is real, what really exists, is that which does not depend on the mind of the observer in order to exist. Reality is said to be mind-independent.
You have probably seen variations of this diagram many times, even in school. It shows (1) the physical object, (2) the perceptual field and (3) the image of the object inside the head. Each component is separate from the others. The important thing about this diagram is the claim of Naïve Realism: the object exists regardless of whether anyone is seeing it. The physical object does not depend on the perceptual field or the inner representation in order to exist. In fact, multiple observers are able to see the exact same object, because it exists before their observation and independently of their observation. This is what it is said to mean for the physical object to exist or be real.
We may even think that there is a triangular image inside our head/brain/mind which resembles the external physical triangle that we think caused it.
Representative Realism tries to account for perceptual relativity by showing how the information coming from the external object is broken down and interpreted by the mind before the mental image arises. That is, the mind is said to play a more active role than it did in Naïve Realism. In Representative Realism, perception happens in stages. The perceived object is still external, pre-existent and objective. But it sends us various signals, which we interpret so as to correctly and accurately re-constitute the object in our minds.
Representative Realism works like this. The object out in the world causes vibrations of different types. These vibrations are picked up by the senses and turn into sense data. The sense data are experienced as sensations and interpreted by the mind, after which the accurate mental image appears. Representative Realism may be depicted in diagrams like this one: Figure 2 – Representative Realism
But in spite of all these stages, Representative Realism makes the same two claims that Naïve Realism makes: (C) The external object (1) causes the mental object (5). (R) The mental object (5) represents and resembles the external object (1). And because of the two veils, the veil of
the senses and the veil of mental interpretation, the idea of verifying claims (C) and (R) makes even less sense than it does with Naïve Realism. But this intellectual conclusion is not enough to overpower the strong belief that there are thoughts and images “on the inside” and a world “on the outside” which match. We still think and feel as though there is a match in which the object causes the idea, and the idea resembles the object. We need to experience directly that this set of “realist” assumptions is never verified.
By “reality effect” I mean the feeling that something is really real, in the way described by some variation of realism. The reality effect is not the reality intended by the realist, but the conviction or feeling about such a reality. Certain experiences can convey a greater or lesser reality effect. Certain experiences can make us feel that something must be “really real.” Certain experiences make us feel that there is something out there truly existing independently of thought and awareness. For example, stubbing our toe in the dark has a greater reality effect most of the time than hearing a musical chime or seeing a pastel bedspread.
Pain has a greater reality effect than pleasure. When people say, “Let’s get real,” they usually mean to accept something unwelcome.
Notice that both the reality effect (T) and the intensity with which it is believed (T1) are simply arisings in witnessing awareness. They are just like other thoughts. They appear in awareness and subside back into awareness. The reality effect is nothing more than that.
Experiments We will investigate our experience directly. We’ll hunt for objectivity. We’ll try to discover the actual presence of veils, levels and layers in our experience that would indicate that we are actually separate from objects and cut off from the world.
When we feel the Realist attitude, we feel that there is an interaction between (1) and (5). Usually we feel that: (C) The external object (1) causes the mental object (5). (R) The mental object (5) represents and resembles the external object (1). Our inquiry will go like this. We will try to verify (C) and (R) by looking into reality and objectivity very carefully. If anything is objectively “out there” or “in here” as an independently existing thing, then it ought to be easier to find the closer we look. We will look very closely and directly. But we will not find anything separate or objective to actually exist. We will not find independence, division or separation. Instead, when we look very closely and directly, we will find wholeness, clarity, completeness and indivisibility. These are the legacies of our nature as awareness.
Each experiment is a potential way to see through one of these common issues. The issues all carry assumptions. The assumptions usually amount to regarding some aspect of experience as a truly existent object.
The objects cannot be found when looked for in direct experience. Only awareness is ”found,” and yet awareness is not an object. It is the very nature of experience itself.
Before You Begin Immediately before doing an experiment, take a few minutes to try what I call the “Heart Opener.” It is akin to falling in love with awareness. It is akin to a reminder that awareness is the nature of you and all things. Experiencing this reminder opens the heart, and you’ll find more ease and less resistance when doing the experiments themselves.
Being Awareness – The Heart Opener 1 Take a deep breath slowly. Exhale slowly, all the way. Take another deep breath. Exhale all the way. Now take three-quarters of a deep breath and exhale as you normally would. 2 Close your eyes. Notice that there might be sounds, sensations, feelings and thoughts arising, but that YOU, the witnessing awareness to which these things are arising, are always already present. 3 Notice that you are this clarity. You are present whether there are objects arising or not. If there are objects, you are already there as THAT which knows the presence of the objects. If there are no objects, you are already there as THAT which knows the absence of the objects. Regardless of the presence or absence of objects, you are there. 4 Notice that you are not an observed object at all, but the open, spacious, brilliant clarity in which objects arise. You cannot grasp or hold this clarity, for it is the very spaciousness in which grasping arises. 5 Notice that there are no walls to this clarity, no edges to YOU. You are borderless. You are not contained by anything. You are limitless. This doesn’t have to take long. You can do it just until you get a taste of yourself as this limitless awareness. There is a sweetness to this taste, which will cause you to fall in love with awareness all over again. And then when you do the experiments, it will guide you home.
Experiment 1 – Hearing The Bell Purpose – Discovering what you really hear. Objects needed – A bell or bowl of some kind. A wooden spoon or chopstick as a striker. Setup – The bell can be a Zen-style temple bell, a gong or a single “jingle” bell. If none of these are around, you can use something from the kitchen, such as a metal serving tray, a mixing bowl or a coffee cup. For the striker, you can use a wooden chopstick or a spoon. If you can find a friend to strike the “bell” for you, this will make it easier for you to focus on hearing without moving your body or involving other senses. But you can do it by yourself if you cannot conveniently find someone to assist. The experiment can still work. The Experiment – Begin with the Heart Opener so that you get a taste of being the open clear spaciousness of awareness. 1 Close your eyes. Have your assistant strike the bell (or if need be, do it yourself with your eyes closed). Let the sound subside. 2 Wait 5 seconds. Strike the bell again. Let the sound subside. 3 Repeat step (2) for a total of 3 strikes of the bell. Inquiry – Inquire into what you have experienced directly. During the following inquiries, strike the bell again if you need to, in order to clarify and verify what you have experienced. Beginning with the experiment itself, whatever comes through hearing has been part of your direct experience. It may seem as though you “heard the bell.” We will investigate it as it is done in the Direct Path. We are basically taking a very close and detailed look at what is directly experienced. Do you experience a separate or independent perceiver? One of the most common assumptions regarding perception is that there is an independent perceiver who is on the ultimate receiving end of incoming sense data. See item 5 in Figure 2 for a schematic image of this perceiver. But going by the sounds themselves and not by thought, inference or imagination, do you actually experience a separate hearer or perceiver? What would the hearer sound like?
Do you experience a bell to be independent of sound? We usually think that the object (i.e., the bell) is a truly existing object which causes the impressions we have of it. This is the object that we think exists outside the “veil of perception.” Let’s see if this idea is verified in direct experience. Don’t go by what you think must be true in order to explain perception. Instead, go by your direct experience. You do seem to experience the bell-sound. But do you also experience a bell making the sound? In other words, do you experience a bell in addition to the sound? If you do experience a bell making the sound, this would help verify the notion that the bell exists objectively. You would be directly experiencing an independent bell. You would be experiencing a bell existing outside your experience. But do you? Going by hearing alone, is there anything directly experienced about the bell other than a bell-sound?
Do you experience a sound to be independent of hearing? We may think that not only the bell, but the sounds themselves are objective. This is because we think the objective bell is causing sounds to exist, which we then pick up and which become sensory information. We often think that the sounds are actually present, waiting for us to come along and hear them. But let’s look into it more closely: Do you experience a sound waiting to be heard, a sound outside the scope of your hearing? In other words, do you directly experience a sound already present which you then proceed to hear? Yet another way of looking at this question…
Do you experience hearing to be independent of awareness? We often think of hearing and seeing as actual objectively existing faculties or abilities. We consider them to be pre-existent tools that awareness makes use of. It seems that we can use these tools to pick up information about the “outside world.” Let’s look into that. Do you experience hearing itself as something existing outside of witnessing awareness? Do you experience hearing being already present in a pre-existent way, waiting to be taken up by…
Witnessing awareness – Try to scan your direct experience: Do you directly experience a moment when awareness is absent? Whether there are bell-sounds or not, do you experience a moment in which awareness is not there? The claims of realism – Remember the two claims of realism, (C) and (R)? (C) The external object causes the mental object. (R) The mental object represents and resembles the external object. Did you directly experience anything that could support either claim? In order to substantiate claim (C), you would need to isolate and identify an external object. Then you would need to isolate and identify a…
Review Of Hearing
The perceiver: No separate perceiver is given in direct experience. The bell: There is no bell experienced to exist objectively outside the bell-sound. In direct experience, there is nothing more objective to the bell than sound. It’s nothing more than sound (and as we will see, much less than sound). No objective bell is experienced. The sound: And yet there is no sound experienced to exist objectively outside the hearing of the sound. There are no unheard sounds directly experienced. This is actually revolutionary. If there are no sounds experienced outside hearing, then the idea that you heard a sound is not verified in direct experience. To verify that you actually hear a sound, we would need independent access to the unheard sound. We would then need to show that this pre-existing unheard sound was then picked up by the faculty of hearing. But nothing like this scenario is given in direct experience. Going by your direct experience, what seemed to be sound is discovered to be just hearing. No objective sound is experienced.
Awareness: Awareness is “there” as presence. It’s never absent. It’s not an object that is able to come and go the way we think bells and sounds must come and go. Rather, awareness is that to which things appear. It is not present; instead, it is presence. And what appears, appears to awareness and only to awareness.
Regardless of what is found or noticed, and regardless of what seems to come up, awareness was always and already there. I hope that the heart-opening exercise helped make this experiential for you!
The result is that realism and objectivity have taken a hit. The more deeply we realize this, the freer we become from separation. The wonderfully ironic thing about this freedom is that we don’t have to stop talking about objects and perception and causality. We can use terms related to physical objects and causality to communicate with others, but we are free from taking them literally. We are free from feeling as though the referents of these words exist objectively and separately from us. We don’t have to abandon our everyday lingua franca. But we no longer need to believe these words and concepts and feel separate because of them.
Experiment 2 – Seeing The Orange Purpose – Discovering what you really see. Objects needed – A table or desk. A chair. A fresh orange. If finding an orange isn’t convenient, then you can use an apple, an egg, a mouse from your PC. It will be helpful if the object you find has a uniform color and a smooth shape without too many sharp angles or corners. I will use the term “orange” in this experiment.
Setup – Find a fresh orange with a bright, uniform color. Clear a place on the table so that the orange can have 8-12” of clear space around it in every direction. Place the orange in the center of that space.
The Experiment – Sit in front of the table so that you are able to see the orange clearly. Rest your hands comfortably on your knees, palms up. This is to diminish any input from kinesthesia or the sense of touch. Begin with the Heart Opener so that…
1 Look at the orange and the table around it. If you see other details in the periphery, you can ignore them, as they are not needed for this exercise. 2 Focus on the orange for as long as you need to, until the table seems like part of the background. 3 Focus…
4 Notice that if you go by direct visual evidence alone, the way you distinguish the orange from the table is simply by color. The orange is more or less a homogeneous expanse of the color orange. The table is a more or less homogeneous expanse of a different color, say brown or beige. According to your direct…
5 Notice that according to your direct visual experience, no color is in front or in back of any other color. There might be a thought that says, “But the table is in back of the orange” – however, that is not direct visual…
6 Check for any shadow which may seem to be cast by the orange onto the table, or which may be visible towards the lower regions of the orange itself. In an everyday sense, a shadow implies depth. But going by direct visual experience alone, any “shadow” is merely a darker shade of color. It is either gray, a darker orange or a darker brown. There is nothing visible about the shadow other than a difference in color from the surrounding regions. What is true about shadow is also true about shine. It is a difference in color or intensity. 7 Check for small “indentations” in the orange. Normally, these would imply differences in texture, which imply differences in depth. But going by direct visual experience alone, they are merely small differences in color. They tend to be smaller differences in color than the difference between the orange and the table. But all these differences are directly experienced as simply differences of color. 8 Check whether you see any depth according to your direct visual experience. Do you actually see a third dimension? Color is two-dimensional. There is an orange shape, with brown above it, below it, to the left and to the right. There is no “close” or “far” or third dimension actually seen. This is how photography, cinema and trompe l’oeil painting work. Of course, a thought may arise, “Wait! The orange is closer to me than the table!…
Inquiry – As you ask yourself the following questions about your direct experience, you may look again at the orange as much as you need to. Do you experience a separate or independent seer? We are asking again what we asked in the hearing exercise. Do we directly experience the perceiver? Do we see that which is seeing? Is it our direct experience? Do you experience an orange apart from the color? We usually think that the color comes from the independent object and resembles the object. But do you actually see the object? Do you experience a physical orange existing behind the color or independent of the color? Do you experience an orange causing the orange color? Do you experience an orange that the color seems to be pointing to? Is there anything directly visually experienced about the orange other than color? Do you directly experience an objectively existing orange? Does such a thing really make sense? Do you experience color to be independent of seeing? Even though we do not experience an objectively existing orange, we may still think that the colors themselves are objective, existing out there waiting to be seen. But is this given in direct experience? Notice that we are not trying to assess the objective existence of a physical orange. We tried to do this in the previous question and came up empty. An objective orange was not established by direct experience. Here we are looking for something more subtle. We are testing to see whether even the colors exist objectively. To justify this claim of objectivity, we would need to experience the colors in some way other than vision and then verify that vision is successfully making contact with the same colors. This is sort of analogous to how detectives confirm an eye-witness report by checking other sources independent of that one report. To do this visually, the only way to verify the independent existence of a color is to visually experience a color that is present but unseen and to then verify that vision actually sees that same color. In other words, we would have to use direct experience to compare an unseen color with a seen color. But do you directly experience an unseen color? What does it mean for a color to be present but unseen? Where is it while it is unseen? Does an unseen color make any sense? And if an unseen color doesn’t make any sense, then how can a seen color make any…