The "Watcher" and Separation From Experience in Meditation

[IllusiveOwl]

Hello One & All!

I want to hear what other people have learned and experienced directly when working with the source of conscious awareness. I understand that connecting with this source is important but I am struggling to grasp what to do after achieving a moderate amount of detachment from experience. Just to make sure we're all on the same page, I'll explain my thinking:

I am speaking from the Advaita Vedanta and Jannism viewpoints: there are two things, the observer and the observed. The observer cannot be observed because then it would be part of the observed. A Swami explained it as the observer being sat in a theater with the observed on a screen. Much like the scenario, there is physical separation between the observer and the screen. While meditating, I have found that while I focus on the distance between my awareness and the screen, the physical senses have as much impact on me as a movie would; I would cry or get anxious if I went along with the movie, but if I was not interested in the movie, it does not matter what happens on the screen, it would not effect me, because I would be about twenty feet away from whatever was happening on the screen.

At first the detached state frightened me, I feared I might be a sociopath, but as time passed I became more comfortable with cold stillness, and being able to return to my normal state afterwards was all the reassurance I really needed. After several sessions of focused meditation on this separation, I have found that pain and erratic thoughts don't disturb my calm as long as I maintain this understanding. I have been experimenting with psychic-alchemy and internal transmutation to maintain this detached state, even achieving it occasionally with intention while out and about in the real world (I find it extremely helpful for staying balanced when dealing with combative or unstable people as my work requires).

I was hoping to see if anyone else had worked with this mode of thinking and achieved any magical success with it, because I feel like the sober autonomy this detachment offers would be very beneficial to a Will-worker!

Advice and discussion is welcome

 

[pixel_fortune]

As far as i can tell, what you're describing is disassociation, which is a state people go into involuntarily during traumatic experiences in order to protect their psyche. People who go through serial trauma (eg abusive childhood) end up developing dissociation as a go-to escape route the second anything negative begins happening, and it's quite sabotaging (it prevents you feeling positive emotions as well as negative emotions - good if you're in a situation that's 90% negative but bad when you get out and want to form normal relationships. It also makes you bad at detecting future threats because the emotions that would warn you are switched off. You can be in a dangerous situation and feel detached and curious instead of getting the fuck out).

I don't mean to be completely down on it: it works, it helps people survive, it helps people react calmly in an emergency instead of panicking and screaming. It is an extremely effective mechanism that we have access to. But it does become something that a lot of people have trouble controlling.

For me personally, dissociation is very easy for me to go to, and i basically never do it, because the risk for me is too high - chronic dissociation = chronic emotional numbness = anhedonia and depression.

So i would say, make use of it only to the degree that you can control entering AND LEAVING that state. Be careful that you're not becoming "addicted" to it, ie relying on it more and more and therefore becoming less and less able to cope with negative emotions when you're not dissociating.

But if you keep an eye on that, then it's a very useful tool to have at your disposal

 

[HoldAll]

Always provided you don't suffer from depersonalisation disorder, such an observer splitting-off is just a normal faculty of our minds that helps us with self-reflection. This means that you consciously create an impersonal observer to experience what true detachment means.

Here is a quote by Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche in "In Love with the World" (it's in the Library):

Once we become familiar with steady awareness, we still often move between this state and normal awareness. Despite the difference between them, both types of awareness exist within a dualistic construct: There is something watching and something being watched—the experience of awareness recognizing itself. When this duality is eliminated, we drop into what we call pure—or non-dual—awareness. Non-duality is the essential quality of awareness, yet when we speak of three types of awareness—normal, meditative, and pure—we are speaking of a gradual experiential process that takes place from dualistic to non-dualistic states, from very cluttered minds to minds that are increasingly liberated from habitual reactivity and preconceptions about how things are supposed to be.

For me, this means that such a splitting-off of an observer (what he calls 'duality') marks only an intermediate stage; it is a temporary aid to becoming really self-aware. When I practice empty-mind meditation, there is always an observing me attentively watching out for any intrusion of unwelcome thoughts, which means that I haven't reached the next level of meditation yet because I still need that observer (and one day I hopefully won't) but I wouldn't want to interfere with that process and laboriously heave myself to a higher level of calmness by willpower and strength-sapping concentration alone because it simply isn't sustainable - one slip and you're back to square one.

If you manage to stay detached in daily life, great, but I wouldn't force it.

 

[pixel_fortune]

Oh it's possible I was reading too intense an experience into OP's description, and they're not talking about dissociation. There is what Pratchett calls "third thoughts" - the thoughts that watch your second thoughts. That exists for me even when I'm, say, very drunk - it is kind of outside the drunkennes and still capable of observing me.

But yeah I've had that my whole life, so I don't think it's a sign of mental development. In fact I would say my goals include being able to switch that off and become fully engaged in things more easily.


Maybe it's just, people who begin with it need to learn to switch it off, and people who begin without it need to learn to switch it on? So everybody ends up in balance? Therapists these days always talk about "cognitive flexibility" as the gold standard. Not that any one emotion or mode of thought is better than another, but that we want to be able to switch appropriately between them as needed.

 

[IllusiveOwl]

Always provided you don't suffer from depersonalisation disorder, such an observer splitting-off is just a normal faculty of our minds that helps us with self-reflection. This means that you consciously create an impersonal observer to experience what true detachment means.

Here is a quote by Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche in "In Love with the World" (it's in the Library):

Once we become familiar with steady awareness, we still often move between this state and normal awareness. Despite the difference between them, both types of awareness exist within a dualistic construct: There is something watching and something being watched—the experience of awareness recognizing itself. When this duality is eliminated, we drop into what we call pure—or non-dual—awareness. Non-duality is the essential quality of awareness, yet when we speak of three types of awareness—normal, meditative, and pure—we are speaking of a gradual experiential process that takes place from dualistic to non-dualistic states, from very cluttered minds to minds that are increasingly liberated from habitual reactivity and preconceptions about how things are supposed to be.

For me, this means that such a splitting-off of an observer (what he calls 'duality') marks only an intermediate stage; it is a temporary aid to becoming really self-aware. When I practice empty-mind meditation, there is always an observing me attentively watching out for any intrusion of unwelcome thoughts, which means that I haven't reached the next level of meditation yet because I still need that observer (and one day I hopefully won't) but I wouldn't want to interfere with that process and laboriously heave myself to a higher level of calmness by willpower and strength-sapping concentration alone because it simply isn't sustainable - one slip and you're back to square one.

If you manage to stay detached in daily life, great, but I wouldn't force it.

Thank you for finding that quote, any wisdom from Tibetan Buddhists is always welcome. Do you think that this third stage of awareness, the "pure" is similar to the Mahayana's Tathāgatagarbha? Admittedly I haven't had a chance to read much Tibetan literature. The quote does remind me a bit of the process laid out through "The Secret of the Golden Flower".

On further reflection, it may have been better for me to ask more directly on advice on how to transition from this detached observation to a full on genuine trance-state, because this state feels like some kind of precipice that I can't move past, but want to. The novelty and strangeness of it all has probably gotten more attention than it should on my end.

Post automatically merged: May 2, 2024

Oh it's possible I was reading too intense an experience into OP's description, and they're not talking about dissociation. There is what Pratchett calls "third thoughts" - the thoughts that watch your second thoughts. That exists for me even when I'm, say, very drunk - it is kind of outside the drunkennes and still capable of observing me.

But yeah I've had that my whole life, so I don't think it's a sign of mental development. In fact I would say my goals include being able to switch that off and become fully engaged in things more easily.


Maybe it's just, people who begin with it need to learn to switch it off, and people who begin without it need to learn to switch it on? So everybody ends up in balance? Therapists these days always talk about "cognitive flexibility" as the gold standard. Not that any one emotion or mode of thought is better than another, but that we want to be able to switch appropriately between them as needed.

The concept of "Third thoughts" is very interesting! I would say what the observer is lays outside of thoughts entirely, because thoughts are just thoughts and our observation is an entirely different process.

I appreciate your trepidation with this possibly being the result of a disassociation disorder, however I have found that modern terminology like that can be dangerous to curiosity, much like how very real measurable effects are dismissed when given the broad label of "Placebo". I also find it interesting how in eastern practices, ego-death is sought after and held as a kind of key to wisdom, where in the west it is labeled as a type of disorder. Rest assured, in my every day life I feel very associated, it is only while engaged in meditation that this phenomenon occurs, especially when I introduce substances into the mix, typically some variant of THC in light doses because my system is very reactive and sensitive (I'm a lightweight), however this is a conscious attempt to enter trance through overstimulation.

I agree wholeheartedly with you though that psychological wellbeing is necessary groundwork before doing any type of mystical experimentation. I am of the mind that to be completely independent and free from influences outside of you yet also to have crystal-clear readings of said influences requires a type of detachment down this avenue; to "disassociate" from your everyday normal Joe ego and transcend to some kind of more etheric consciousness.

 

[HoldAll]

Thank you for finding that quote, any wisdom from Tibetan Buddhists is always welcome. Do you think that this third stage of awareness, the "pure" is similar to the Mahayana's Tathāgatagarbha? Admittedly I haven't had a chance to read much Tibetan literature. The quote does remind me a bit of the process laid out through "The Secret of the Golden Flower".

It has been many years since I studied Tibetan Buddhism, only now I've come to realize that Buddhist theory alone without any meditation practice is just fancy words. Pure awareness for me is a very distant goal, I can't help thinking how these Tibetan monks typically start off at the age of four and are therefore way ahead of us Western adults taking up meditation at a later point in our lives; I'm not sure if I can even reach that goal in a single lifetime. Right now I'm on this very simple Zen-like path where I simply sit down, try to empty my mind and don't think about all those Buddhist teachings at all.

Meditation and trance are two totally different things to me. Of course it's all a matter of definition but meditation means for me the attainment of unblemished clarity while trance is more like a dream-state, unfocussed, fuzzy, otherworldly. As far as I know, 'trance' is not a concept in classic Buddhism and not practised by monks; in Tibet, however, you have these oracle-dancers who work in trance states, most likely a holdover from shamanistic traditions. Maybe I should look into Bön and find out if its adherents practice trance.

Post automatically merged: May 2, 2024

Actually, it may be quite simple - pure awareness is attained when you don't need the observer anymore to maintain an empty mind, in the Zen paradigm at least (I'm sure the Tibetans would posit half a dozen intermediate stages instead, their thinking tends towards complexity).

 

[IllusiveOwl]

It has been many years since I studied Tibetan Buddhism, only now I've come to realize that Buddhist theory alone without any meditation practice is just fancy words. Pure awareness for me is a very distant goal, I can't help thinking how these Tibetan monks typically start off at the age of four and are therefore way ahead of us Western adults taking up meditation at a later point in our lives; I'm not sure if I can even reach that goal in a single lifetime. Right now I'm on this very simple Zen-like path where I simply sit down, try to empty my mind and don't think about all those Buddhist teachings at all.

Meditation and trance are two totally different things to me. Of course it's all a matter of definition but meditation means for me the attainment of unblemished clarity while trance is more like a dream-state, unfocussed, fuzzy, otherworldly. As far as I know, 'trance' is not a concept in classic Buddhism and not practised by monks; in Tibet, however, you have these oracle-dancers who work in trance states, most likely a holdover from shamanistic traditions. Maybe I should look into Bön and find out if its adherents practice trance.

Post automatically merged: May 2, 2024

Actually, it may be quite simple - pure awareness is attained when you don't need the observer anymore to maintain an empty mind, in the Zen paradigm at least (I'm sure the Tibetans would posit half a dozen intermediate stages instead, their thinking tends towards complexity).

I agree wholeheartedly with your views on the words of Sutras, as do most Buddhist teachings! The Sutras often say that Buddhism is a finger pointing to the moon, and the practitioner must look away from the finger and gaze upon the moon themselves. Another analogy is that the Sutras are a raft to get you across the river of Samsara, then once on the other side, free, you discard the raft and leave it behind for it has served its purpose.

Personally I see meditation as the pathway to trances; from what I understand so far many practices require intense focus either on a repetitive pattern or some kind of meditative detachment from the senses. Then once in the trance, sober & lucid travel is done elsewhere or messages are received. I have only ever achieved an otherworldly experience with meditation once after a frustrating year of practice, and it was a short - yet impactful - experience that acts as the only tangible proof to me that there are senses outside of our physical faculties that we are able to activate. I read a profound passage from "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" by Shunryū Suzuki, then did two separate 45 minute meditations in one day to achieve it. I can't recommend that book enough, it has simple and practical wisdom that cuts to the quick!

 

[HoldAll]

We have this Zen book in the Library that many people praise:

Book – PDF - Nothing Special - Living Zen by Charlotte J. Beck, Steve Smith

The best-selling author of 'Everyday Zen' shows how to awaken to daily life and discover the ideal in the everyday, finding riches in our feelings, relationships, and work. 'Nothing Special' offers the rare and delightful experience of learning in the authentic Buddhist tradition with a...

wizardforums.com

I haven't read it yet but I love the title - empty-mind meditation is simplicity itself, no need to make a great mistery out of it. The empty mind is truly nothing special, just its natural state without the clutter of conscious thought.

 

[Xenophon]

It has been many years since I studied Tibetan Buddhism, only now I've come to realize that Buddhist theory alone without any meditation practice is just fancy words. Pure awareness for me is a very distant goal, I can't help thinking how these Tibetan monks typically start off at the age of four and are therefore way ahead of us Western adults taking up meditation at a later point in our lives; I'm not sure if I can even reach that goal in a single lifetime. Right now I'm on this very simple Zen-like path where I simply sit down, try to empty my mind and don't think about all those Buddhist teachings at all.

Meditation and trance are two totally different things to me. Of course it's all a matter of definition but meditation means for me the attainment of unblemished clarity while trance is more like a dream-state, unfocussed, fuzzy, otherworldly. As far as I know, 'trance' is not a concept in classic Buddhism and not practised by monks; in Tibet, however, you have these oracle-dancers who work in trance states, most likely a holdover from shamanistic traditions. Maybe I should look into Bön and find out if its adherents practice trance.

Post automatically merged: May 2, 2024

Actually, it may be quite simple - pure awareness is attained when you don't need the observer anymore to maintain an empty mind, in the Zen paradigm at least (I'm sure the Tibetans would posit half a dozen intermediate stages instead, their thinking tends towards complexity).

I recall reading Sogyal Rinpoche (I think) saying that the conditions of modern urban life* render certain practices and meditative states impossible. Part of the effects of these final ages of the kalpa. Of course, it were well to take no one's word for this and see how far one can still progress.

(*Maybe not just urban life. The Dalai Lama scrapped plans for building a retreat in western Montana's Biterroot Valley. The californication of that state has apparently robbed the valley of the needed atmosphere. Strip malls go poorly with satori and such.)