Is awareness watching awareness the highest truth?

I'm always looking for shortcuts to enlightenment, bliss, nirvana -- whatever you want to call it. For a long time I was on a spiritual path.

Paths take time to travel. I'm too old for paths. I want to see the promised land right goddamn now! Not after death. Not after years of meditation practice.

Now!

So my attention perked up when I got an email today from an occasional Church of the Churchless visitor who said, in part:

A guy by the name of Michael Langford, (who I recently ran across) says that he had followed Sri Ramana's 'self inquiry' method for some 27 years without getting much in the way of results.  Then in 2001, while visiting Tirunnivalli (sp) and the Ramana Ashram there, he made a slight change as to how he practiced this method and that in the subsequent 2 years and 1 month, he says he merged into . . . whatever . . . bliss-awareness-love . . . you know, the whole deal.

I've always had a strong interest in Sri Ramana, Sri NIsargadatta,  Annamali Swami, and a couple others.  Personally, I always felt RSSB's  'Simran' [mantra meditation] to be too 'noisy'  and preferred something more silent. 

On an RSSB CD from the 1988 series, from a cassette dated 23Nov88, around track 19/20 or so, Maharaj Ji [Charan Singh] answers a series of questions and comments from a young lady . . . and says that Simran takes you to a state of silence in which one couldn't repeat the names . . . and that this silence is the state to be achieved . . . however one gets there.  That was my understand of what was said.  That kind of justifies to me my own proclivities toward silence as opposed to simran.

I feel the same way. Mantra meditation, where you calm and focus the mind by repeating a word or words, seems to be a means without an end.

That is, you've reduced mental noise by whispering to yourself.

It's a quantitative rather than qualitative change. Pleasant, useful, worthwhile. But is this the highest state of human consciousness?

The email pointed me toward Albigen.com, a site that looked familiar. Since the Internet couldn't have existed in a past life, I'm pretty sure my deja vu sense was the result of having looked over these awareness watching awareness writings not too long ago.

I've seen lots of claims like this: "The Most Rapid and Direct Means to Eternal Bliss." I'm always skeptical of them.

But I also like the words "rapid," "direct," and "bliss." So I read on. Or, re-read on.

There's a surprising amount of material on this web site describing the rapid and direct method. I found that disturbing. I wanted to share the method in today's blog post and didn't want to spend all night learning about it.

So I focused on the Awareness Watching Awareness "book," thirteen online chapters that I zipped through quickly.

More quickly than the author wanted me to read them, since I kept coming across admonitions to read the sentences slowly, savoring them like fine wine. Well, I chugged them down like beer.

In Chapter 4 I learned that I'm supposed to devote at least two hours a day to the Awareness Watching Awareness (AWA) practice. Naturally my dogma-averse mind immediately popped up with "who says?"

And so it went through the brief book. On the whole, I liked the message. But the tone is preachy.

Like Langford, I'm also an admirer of Ramana and have read several books about his teachings. And I too am a long-time meditator who is looking to make meditation into something more than endless looking for the moment that will end the desire for looking.

Chapter 6 describes how the author came to his breakthrough "it's all about awareness watching awareness!" realization.

If you want to jump right into how-to, Chapter 7 is where the method is revealed. There's a variety of descriptions of AWA. This is the basic one:

Shut your eyes. Notice your awareness. Observe that awareness. Turn your attention away from the world, body and thought and towards awareness watching awareness. If you notice you are thinking, turn your attention away from thought and back towards awareness watching awareness.

OK. Makes sense. But I kept wondering, "Why not just be aware? Isn't this practice dividing awareness into two, while it seems to be one?"

Maybe Langford addresses this question somewhere. I could have missed it in my rush to get to the mystical "money shot."

The final Chapter 13 has the most disturbing dogma. Langford goes into full-on fundamentalist fire and brimstone mode here.

If you do not do your spiritual practice everyday, you will continue to be caught in the cycle of birth and death, birth again, death again, birth again, death again and in that cycle, eventually, all of the thousands of forms that suffering takes will enter your life.

If you do not do your spiritual practice everyday, you will experience death, diseases, violence and thousands of other types of suffering, lifetime after lifetime.

Dude, lighten up. You're giving non-dualism a bad name. If I wanted to be threatened with eternal damnation I would have stuck with Catholicism.

Where Langford goes astray, I'd say, is a common problem in spiritual writings of this sort (I should know, because I've fallen prey to it myself).

It pops up when someone has a profound spiritual or mystical experience and then extrapolates that to apply to everybody. This is the seedbed of religious dogma: an individual understanding is turned into a universal truth.

I think Langford is on to something with his awareness watching awareness insights.

However, they aren't unique to him. Many others have had similar experiences and managed to write about them in a less preachy fashion.

I've come to meditate in pretty much the way that's encouraged by the AWA method. I don't do it for several hours a day though. And I don't feel the urge to make this my main life's work.

Langford did. That's great. But I'm me, just as you are you.

Each of us has to find our own way. Awareness watching awareness may be an aspect of it. Or, not.

Here's a nice summary of the AWA approach that I found via this laudatory site:

Download awareness_watching_awareness.pdf

Comments

[tAo]

Brian,

Well well... Just thought I'd tell you that I know Michael personally. I've spoken with him on the phone a few times some years ago. I know all about his AWA thing, and his old website.

Also, I happen to know that he spent some time back in the 90s with another Ramana oriented teacher (whom I also know) by the name of "Nome" at his Society for Abidance in Truth in Sant Cruz, Calif.
See: http://www.satramana.org

At this point, I generally agree with you about the non-necessity of artifically splitting awareness into an AWA, and the imposed contrivance of regular practice, etc. And yes, too preachy.

But the core and the gist of Michael's approach is worth considering, if only as a way to cut to the chase more, and to avoid all the hamperment and bulk of exteraneous baggage that most other spiritual paths and approaches contain and have attached to them.

[Obed]

Dear All,
A variation to AWA for those still doing the traditional Sant Mat meditation is to listen
to the sound with the eyes.Is this nonsense?
Well try it out and see what happens.
Good luck
Obed

[Rain]

When I meditate, which is when I think about and take the time to do it (once I stopped doing past life regressions), my method sounds like what you are describing-- settle into a time of not thinking, total body relaxation, turning off all thoughts, and let everything be still. I don't do it for a purpose of enlightenment though but more to stop the mind chatter which is a constant for me in waking or sleeping states (my dreams are usually quite vivid, colorful and constant mix of stories, events, things to see, to do, to worry over, etc). Some say when you do this kind of meditation, it's when you can hear what is being said spiritually to you. I don't know about that but for me, it's a mind break, not easy because my mind is always trying to break through with something. Not being like the rest of you here with a background in eastern religions, I haven't had the same experiences although Christianity does encourage meditation and I have a friend who has accessed things like the Akashic records, done out of body travel for spiritual learning purposes, and he encourages me to do those things also as a way of gaining life understanding. While I believe he has experienced what he has described to me, enjoy hearing of his life lessons, I haven't had the feeling that was for me-- yet anyway.

[Jayme]

"Is awareness watching awareness the highest truth?"

The question seems to have been answered.

Brian said -
"Why not just be aware? Isn't this practice dividing awareness into two, while it seems to be one?" The implicit answer is yes. AWA seems to be a method like others.

Obed says -
"A variation to AWA for those still doing the traditional Sant Mat meditation is to listen to the sound with the eyes [closed]."

tAo's comment applies -
"...the core and the gist of Michael's approach is worth considering, if only as a way to cut to the chase more, and to avoid all the hamperment and bulk of exteraneous baggage that most other spiritual paths and approaches contain and have attached to them."

Obed asks -
"Is this nonsense?"

No, "traditional Sant Mat meditation" is fine but as the author of the email points out "Personally, I always felt RSSB's 'Simran' [mantra meditation] to be too 'noisy' and preferred something more silent."

and Obed says -
"Well try it out and see what happens."

Absolutely! but as Rain points out -
"Not being like the rest of you here with a background in eastern religions, I haven't had the same experiences although Christianity does encourage meditation..."

Rain is not a student of sant mat and he(?) is not expected to meditate in a manner based on RS teachings. I think the Bible says, "Be still and know..." Pretty simple stuff.

[Deepak Kamat]

I feel Ramana is right.

[tucson]

I think it is impossible for awarenes to watch awareness.

All is just seeing: There is no 'thing' seen. And there is no see-er other than the seeing of the seen.

[robbie ancel]

Charan Singh told people that thay could use any methoed to get to the eye centre, as long as they 'GOT' to the eye centre.
He also said that the Sant Mat Gurus' advocated Simran as they felt it was the easist path to the eye centre for this day and age.The aim of getting to the eye centre is to link with the 'inner' guide.
So presumably, by finding and using a 'faster' method its a win win situation.
The person gets to the eye centre and then finds their teacher waiting to guide them further.
For years I could not focus. And after hearing somthing Gurinda Singh say in a meeting made me realise I was focusing on idea of focusing.

[tAo]

Jayme asks: "Is awareness watching awareness the highest truth?"

-- Is the search for "the highest truth" even necessary? Is there a "highest truth".

Well I don't think so. This "truth" (and the search for it), as it is implied here, is only an abstract idea that is being entertained. All there IS, is THIS. (although we don't know what "THIS" really is)

Therefore, why then search for "truth", or the "highest truth"?

And as for this "AWA" (Awareness Watching Awareness)... as Tucson has so rightly said "it is impossible for awarenes to watch awareness". In reality, it is impossible. Awareness Watching Awareness is only plausible in the imagination.

Awareness is never an object (regardless of what may be proposed), so Awareness cannot be an object, or even be its own object. (also, awareness is not an "it" or an "its" either)

And Awareness is not a 'someone'... it is simply like akin to pure SEEING, but there is no actual 'Seer'. There is only the 'seeing' which is also not different than the apparent 'seen'.

So this notion of attempting to make Awareness into its own object, is merely an idea which can never come to fruition.

It is fundamentally a dualistic notion and gesture, to even entertain much less to attempt an AWA. In short, it is merely word jugglery.

Michael Langford was/is attempting to simplify and improve upon Sri Ramana, but that is like... totally unnecessary and relatively futile. So why even bother? Why approach non-duality by making awareness into an object? Awareness does not need to, and cannot DO anything (like "watching").

Although this so-called "AWA" might not be totally worthless... because in an odd way, it could perhaps make a kind of interesting Zen koan.

[Catherine Muller]

Hi there,

I am posting this here because this particular thread seems to be the closest fit for this particular question ... So, please bear with me. Thanks.

Frequently on Churchless there are discussions around objective and subjective reality along the lines of "who is the dreamer having the dream and is someone else dreaming me?:

This got me thinking (or the being I think of as me thinking - ha, ha) that perhaps in death - or in death-like states - when I cease to be "me" I can have a clearer insight into my true identity?

So, it was with interest that I read that the University of Southampton is conducting the largest ever study of near-death experiences:

http://www.soton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2008/sep/08_165.shtml

My one comment would be that it's a pity the participants of this study are being drawn from a reasonably unified cultural group: Europe and North America that have common values.

This is a shame because could it not be that one's cultural conditioning, or spiritual practice, determines one's near-death experiences?

The reason I ask this has to do with the fact that I once spent an afternoon talking to a lady who is a strongly observant Seventh Day Adventist. This person believes that when she dies she will sleep in a state of darkness until the Second Coming.

Recently, she had a near death-experience (she was clinically dead for a couple of minutes) and she described entering the very state of blackness and nothingness that she always believed she would ...

Therefore, one could argue that her preconceptions created that reality. Similarly, Tibetan Buddhists believe that a lucid and calm state is vital for passing through the Bados correctly at the time of death and one is given clear instructions on what to do, when ... In other words, what you are thinking - and how you are thinking - will influence your death experience.

Ergo, death is all in the mind.

I find we tend to think of death as universally finite and therefore perhaps universally 'the same' for everyone.

Perhaps this is simply not so?

All the best, C

[tAo]

Catherine, you said:

"Frequently on Churchless there are discussions around objective and subjective reality along the lines of "who is the dreamer having the dream and is someone else dreaming me?"

-- Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember or noticed any discussions "frequently" going on here that were specifically about "is someone else dreaming me?"... or even about "who is the dreamer".

I do remember that there have occasionally been some issues & discussions about: a.) whether or not awareness is personal or impersonal; b.) the nature of the ego as being merely an "I" thought or ahamkara and related to bodily identification; or c.) the difference between awareness and the ego-identity.

Also, your comment seemed to be much more related to and centered around NDEs, than the nature and relationship between ego/identity and awareness. Because you said:

"that perhaps in death - or in death-like states - when I cease to be "me" I can have a clearer insight into my true identity?"

-- You certainly don't have to wait until death to have clarity and profound insight into your "true identity". That is available in each and every moment of your life. And it is (more or less) effortless. It is not necessary (or fruitful) to die in order to have insight into your so-called "true identity". The ever-present instant of awareness is the key.

However, I would like to mention to you something that is somewhat related to that: There is one thing I have noticed that a great many people seem to miss about this NDE issue.

And that is: A "near-death" experience is NOT actually true and final death. The heart may have slowed way way down (as to be imperceptible) or perhaps even stopped momentarily, and the breath may also have subsided for some period of time... BUT, the brain has not actually become dead. Actual total death has not yet occured.

Far too many people tend to blur the lines here, especially when they want to say that having an NDE is the same as death, but it just is NOT.

In other words, 'you ain't dead until you're DEAD'.

So if someone is not actually, truly and finally and completely dead (which is a PROCESS that takes time), then all sorts of various experiential and perceptual phenomena can and do occur. This is the fundamental fallacy of equating NDEs with total irreversible death. No one has ever totally died and lived to tell about it.

And in fact, Brian and I had this basic same argument repeatedly with some guy here about a year or two ago. This guy posted all of these references and stuff about various people's NDEs and such, but unfortunately NONE of it was ever able to prove that those people had actually completely died.

Moreover, as an example.... even Sri Ramana Maharshi deliberately entered into a sort of self-imposed near-death experience (and his Self-realization was apparently directly due to that), but in reality he never actually completely died - he was never really and truly totally DEAD. He merely feigned his own death sufficiently, which then triggered his samadhi and ultimately Self-realization. But he didn't actually physically die.

So death is not merely "all in the mind". Death is real, it is death of the body and the brain.

Then there is what is commonly referred to as "ego-death", but that is altogether an entirely different subject matter. Perhaps maybe you were referring more to that? I'm not sure.

[Jayme]

Why We Search

tAo responded

"Is the search for "the highest truth" even necessary? Is there a "highest truth".

"Well I don't think so. This "truth" (and the search for it), as it is implied here, is only an abstract idea that is being entertained. All there IS, is THIS. (although we don't know what "THIS" really is)

o agreed.

"Therefore, why then search for "truth", or the "highest truth"?"

o Many DO search for truth even though it is unnecessary. But this is what is. Truth cannot be found in possession of an object but I think the reason WHY people begin searching for it is the false personal sense that they will, at some point in time, possess it. The search arises when memory of the past and desire for some future are in discordance with what is present. If the search successfully brings the seeker to this awareness that there is only now, this recognition that it is unnecessary to seek is said to be "realized." One becomes aware at this moment of realization that it is only their mental perception of past and future that take them "away" from the present moment. This perception "approaches" the "THIS that IS" but it is still not the ground of being itself (THIS that IS). The illusion of this existence is that this perceiving awareness is somehow real. Even after the realization that there is no need to search after all, the perceiver is still in the dual mind. Crossing this "threshold," dissolves the illusion of the perceiver, the "threshold" and all separation as individual identity. THIS that IS can't be known otherwise.

tuscon says
"...it is impossible for awarenes to watch awareness".

I think that this merging into the "THIS that IS" is dissolution of duality, and the phantom of "awareness watching awareness" or awareness itself dissolves too.

[Catherine Muller]

Hi tAo and Jayme,

I guess my question would be:

do you think that the way we think about death while living - our expectations of it, what we are told will happen - determines the actual outcome of what we go through when we die?

For example, Tibetan Buddhists describe one potential set of outcomes; Catholics another; Spiritualists their own kind; ancient Egyptians had their own; indigenous African shamans yet another ...

They're all talking about death, but their accounts of exactly what happens after dying differ.

One can put these differences down to language and culture. But at the heart of it, do you think pre-conceptions determine the outcome?

Over the years I've read books that say things like: you die and when you get to the other side you'll meet all those you've ever loved (including pets) and it's a happy reunion. Then, you go to school where you have various life-review sessions and you decide how well you fared on planet Earth ... You do some studying and you hang out with like-minded souls / energy groups ... Then you get to decide what your next life will be (you're going to be working on this or that aspect of your evolution so you choose the life that best allows you to do this) ... you go through the bulk "memory eraser" so you forget all of the above; you re-incarnate and you're back in maya all over again ... And so it goes.

This is one version, but I have come across variations on this theme ... However, the above story never dovetails with that offered by Buddhism, for example, or other Eastern mystical traditions or those of the ancient Polynesians.

Your thoughts?

All the best, C

[Obed]

Dear Catherine,
There is a doctoral thesis by J.Glenn Friesen from
The University of South Africa on the mystic
Abhishiktananda.Here is the site
http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Mainheadings/Abhi.html
Abhi had an NDE and through this experience had a spiritual awakening.Below is possibly some of his
poetry but I am not sure of this.

" Abandoned by men, and abandoned by God
alone with himself
alone, infinitely alone. ...
There [on the further shore] he discovered the aloneness of the Alone,
and the aloneness of Being,
and the joy of BEING, the peace of Being, the freedom of Being.
He awoke; there was no longer an abyss, nor a river, nor any river-banks,
Arunachala had disappeared.
He was."

The reference to Arunachala is because he spent much
time meditating there in the caves.
The thesis is long but very worthwhile read.
I enjoyed reading it.
Best regards
Obed

[tAo]

Catherine,

You said:

"my question would be: do you think that the way we think about death while living - our expectations of it, what we are told will happen - determines the actual outcome of what we go through when we die?"

-- No I don't think so, at least not the over-all "outcome". However, perceptions and experiences undergone during the death process, probably vary from one person to another. But I very much doubt that the "outcome" is different.

I strongly feel that the over-all death process, and especially the final outcome, is virtually the same (with the only variation being in the very intital stages of the death process, and that being depending on whether or not the person was awake and conscious in their last moments, or they were unconsious or sedated or in a coma, or they had a very abrupt sudden and instantaneous end - such as a sudden trauma to the head, a sudden instantly fatal gunshot, or a sudden explosion, etc)
Otherwise, I think that the rest of the process is a matter of a disintegration and a disolution and a resolution of the subtle and mental bodies and the five elements, back into primordial awareness. I believe that that process is basically identical for everyone.

"For example, Tibetan Buddhists describe one potential set of outcomes; Catholics another; Spiritualists their own kind; ancient Egyptians had their own; indigenous African shamans yet another"

-- As I said, the very beginning and initial stages of the death process may be slightly different depending on the mental state in the instants before death, the cultural or religious background, and especially the sanskaras and vasanas (impressions and tendencies), but the latter stages and ultimate outcome of the death process is identical for everyone.

"They're all talking about death, but their accounts of exactly what happens after dying differ."

-- But thats kind absurd if you really think about it. Because how would any of them actually know if they had not yet died, if they had not yet experienced death completely? Because no one has come back from final death to tell us about it. NDE's may be similar to the very intitial stage of the death process, but NDEs are not the final and total death. So various cultures, religions, etc may have different ideas and beliefs about the death and the after-life, but these are all simply conjecture.

"One can put these differences down to language and culture. But at the heart of it, do you think pre-conceptions determine the outcome?"

-- Yes there are clearly differences in language and culture... but NO I don't think that such differences affect or determine the final "outcome" at all. (or even the latter stages of the death process)

"Over the years I've read books that say things like: you die and when you get to the other side you'll meet all those you've ever loved (including pets) and it's a happy reunion. Then, you go to school where you have various life-review sessions and you decide how well you fared on planet Earth ... You do some studying and you hang out with like-minded souls / energy groups ... Then you get to decide what your next life will be (you're going to be working on this or that aspect of your evolution so you choose the life that best allows you to do this)"

-- No I think thats all just a bunch of wishful, hopeful, romantic, fantasy mumbo-jumbo. I myself definitely do NOT think that any of that happens. It is simply nothing more than a bunch of wishful and sometimes childish fantasy promulgated by people and their spiritual and religious ideas (like Christianity or Sant Mat), that desires and hopes and wants to believe in a continuity of personal individuality, of memory, of meaning and purpose, of an after-life, etc etc. I don't subscribe to any of that, which I consider to be merely optimistic and wishful nonsense that is believed by people who want to be assured that their individuality will continue after death.

But the truth and the reality (imo) of it, is that the personal individuality and story simply does not continue on into an after-life at all... rather, it is utterly disintegrated and dissolved back into its nondual primordial essence.

That is also the conclusion of Buddhism and also of some siddhas and shamans.

I am very much of the opinion that in the death process (which is virtually and ultimately the same for everyone), the personality structure, the memory, the so-called 'subtle' body and 'mental' (causal) body, and the five elements are all disintegrated down into their core ESSENCE of impersonal Primordial Awareness. That is why all memory is "erased" - memory not retained. Only the sanskaras (impressions), the vasanas (tendencies), and the kleshas (obscurations) remain in a latent form and are then carried on into the next restructuring into form - the next incarnation.

"you go through the bulk "memory eraser" so you forget all of the above; you re-incarnate and you're back in maya all over again ... And so it goes."

-- Imo, I don't believe that there is any so-called "memory eraser" per se... but no doubt memory is lost when the individual consciousness/personality goes through a process of disintegration and reduction, and is thus resolved into its essential components (sanskaras & vasanas), and then into and through primal non-duality (momentary clearlight).

"This is one version, (...) However, the above story never dovetails with that offered by Buddhism, for example, or other Eastern mystical traditions or those of the ancient Polynesians."

-- Yes, I think that is is more or less evident.

"Your thoughts?"

-- See my comments above for my thoughts and opinions. And I hope that sheds some light on the issue.

[Adam]

tAo,
Can you describe how you understand sanskaras carrying on in spit of the great eraser?
Thanks,
Adam

[tAo]

Adam (and anyone else that needs clarification)

First, lt me say that I forgot/failed to make something clear in my previous comments to Catherine about the death process and the supposed after-life realm/experiences etc. What I related was meant primarily as an opposing counter-point to the beliefs regarding the supposed after-life experiences and/or the NDE stuff that Catherine mentioned. It was at all not meant to be taken as representative of the true nature of life/death. The assumption of death is merely an idea. ... For how can there be a death to that which is unborn? All that appears manifest in form and substance is in constant change - appearance, growth, decay, dissolution. That which is unborn, is therefore timeless, changeless, and deathless. But what is THAT? Just try find out WHO you are, or WHAT IS.

Second, Adam asks: "Can you describe how you understand sanskaras carrying on in spit of the great eraser?"

-- Adam, I clearly indicated that I do NOT accept or hold any validity to this so-called "great eraser" idea. And also, so-called "sanskaras" is merely a common term which traditionally indicates subtle impressions (or the sub-conscious mind) that, along with the ahamkara (the primal "I" thought) creates the illusion of there being a kind of separate and cohesive and discrete individual, but which (the sanskaras) can be and are released/dissolved irrespective of time, place or onset of so-called "death".

In any case, in reality there are no actual separate individuals that live, or that die. Bodies/forms apppear, and bodies/forms disappear... but awareness is like empty space - unborn, primordial, and impersonal. Death is only a presumption based entirely upon the illusion of a birth and a supposed separate individuality.

And Tucson (contrary to the elephant's needless and pointless static) has already explained all this far more succinctly and with much greater clarity and accuracy, so any additional words and explanations from my side will only serve to confound, diminish, and depart from that clarity.

[Jayme]

Catherine asked: " Your thoughts?"

From a conceptual perspective - tAo covered it. I won't hack and slash his good words. What he says seems correct, from my limited understanding.

I don't know how well this addresses your questions but here are some thoughts around and about the questions:

When a mystic comes into being, they use contemporary practices and symbols from their knowledge of the natural world as a pedagogical method for "attaining enlightenment." When the transcendent becomes obscured by interpretations by unenlightened followers or scholars, contradictions within a mystical tradition often arise. Eventually these contradictions inflected over time obscure the intent of the original teachings and the stories don't "dovetail." When the symbols are mistaken for the experience, we get a wonderfully rich variety of historical (and very dead) mythologies that are rife with inconsistencies.

Using Joseph Campbell's recipe - A LIVING mythology provides four social functions:
1. (the mystic) - opens up a realization of the mystical dimension which exists behind the physical appearances of the world
2. (the cosmologic) - an Image of the world which incorporates a contemporary cosmological model that actually works
3. (the sociologic) - validates and maintains a certain specific social order of this specific society
4. (the pedagogic) - guides the individual harmoniously through the inevitable crises of the various stages of life

It is my understanding that meditation (if it works for us) takes us through death to the mystical dimension "behind" appearances and allows us to see our way through the crises of our lives. In this sense, meditation is quite practical for two reasons. The first is that this practice can lead us to personal realization and grounds us in our own being rather than being subject to all the noisy energies of the universe. We are built upon the rock of our own being - so to speak. The second is that this realization brings vitality and strength back into the society through self-belief (not self pride) and the subsequent strength acquired through that founded belief.

I think that there is no death - only the perception of death - which is personal. The experience of death is shaped by our social conditions.

Interpretation of religious concepts is deceptive. Is God a Man? What is the purpose of the central mountain that is everywhere, yet nowhere? And who is this Vishnu guy anyway? These concepts can invigorate or deaden us; depending on who we pick as our teacher. Unless a religion speaks to a contemporary individual in a meaningful way through contemporary symbols that helps them in and through this world, the stories won't make sense. Those mythologies were for another world at another time.

After his motorcycle accident, my brother was in a coma. He says there is nothing there. This may not be considered a Near Death Experience but it shaped his outlook on life. My sister has had an out-of-body experience while in the hospital. She is very active in the church. Neither of their experiences coincide with my concepts of now or the hereafter but I have no reason to think they are making these stories up... except perhaps when my brother tells me HE is my god... LOL :)

Anyway, I think the experiences are personal and unique to a person and/or society. I only have notions about what the "afterlife" is supposed to be based on my reading. I believe the transcendent experience is impersonal but think we can't know except by being.

Regards,

[Catherine Muller]

tAo, Obed, Adam and Jayme, great responses - thank you :-) That was a truly worthwhile read.

Personally, I have always been attracted to Polynesian descriptions of human beings being composed of:

- our mind
- our sub-conscious as something else
- and our soul as yet another energy.

Their version of the holy trinity, and all three of these energies go with us when we die, but they split off into different 'destinations'.

( The sub-conscious here is not as Freud understood it but a part of us that can be accessed and told to believe anything is real because there is no sense of 'real' or 'not real'. Feats like fire-walking and other 'miraculous' faculties etc work with this part of the mind. )

For me, this notion of a trinity is the only way I can explain notions of an afterlife that include, at the one end of the spectrum, ghosts or Auntie Mabel who has died and is talking to us through a psychic ( the energy of Auntie and her mind coming through) - as opposed to the blissful, transcendent states of yogis that are more about the soul at the other end of the spectrum.

I think of sanskaras as vibrational grooves that sit on our minds and sub-conscious and when the above 3 components come together again just as we are about to assume a human body, that's when these mental impressions surface.

This Polynesian trinity concept also co-incides with human beings having 3 distinct but inter-connected brains (the limbic, the reptilian and the neocortex).

Just my 2 cents ...

But you're right. This is all very notional. We'll know the truth about death when we die at which point, we can re-group and share notes, ha, ha!

All the best, C

[Brian]

I have read and re-read Michael Langford's book and I believe in it. It is beginning to work for me. I think this thread is a perfect example of the ego playing its tricks and creating detours. The issue with AWA implying two awarenesses confronted me as well. I was confused. I kept trying to envision or feel what awareness really was. What helped me was to call it consciousness instead. Consciousness is the ability to know that you "are", that you "exist". The AWA method, to me, is being conscious of that. Be conscious of your consciousness. The word consciousness, for some reason, works better for me. The reason he pushes you to read slowly, and re-read, is because your ego is perfectly happy to skim, and not absorb. If you think about it, your initial instinct is to skim, to "move on". Whatever is coming next is better, there is no time to focus on this moment, this piece of information. The ego is at work there, and does not see anything favorable in the insight that may come from careful, thoughtful attention. Towards the end of the book he gives some examples of the "end state" or final goal. One example is of being in a dark house with darkened windows where only a sliver of light shines through. If you want to find the sun, you don't start by looking for the sun, you start by looking for that sliver of light, following it, and letting it lead you to the sun. Being aware of your consciousness, or "being your consciousness" as i approach it, gradually gives you peeks of that light and, hopefully, with enough focus, will lead you to the sun (Self, Reality, Awakening).

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

I wonder, now, if you will be excoriated for not following the line of "awareness" (before all else) terminology.

Robert Paul Howard

[Adam]

Hello there!

I think it is true that Langford's material does come across as preachy, and perhaps a little condescending. However, after spending more than half my life meditating in different traditions, and having ups and downs in my progress and results, it is clear to me now that Michael is correct on three fundamental things: (1)At least two to three hours of practice a day will result in demonstrable progress; less will likely result in very little, other than general relaxation and psycho-physiological and emotional benifets - like that gained from other healthy relaxing practices, but not self-realization (if you're enlightened, fine, if not, ask why, and how long have you been spouting nothing to do, take it easy, just notice now; and yet, what progress and realization have you really made, or is it just rhetoric? How happy and satisfied are you really? How identified experimentally are you still with the ongoing pain of ego?);(2) by focusing on awareness as an object of meditation, rather than just simply being aware, results in Jhana or absorptions, and directly affects a change in consciousness or a diving into the infinite; which brings results. This may be done with other methods like watching the breath; the point is, sustained focused attention gets the results, raather than resting in open awareness; however, as one goes deeper, the resting naturally occurs. But to go to the resting straight away, often results in relatively little good effect - one floats on the surface of awareness rather than diving into its depths. The depths is where you will find your infinite nature - see through ego consciousness; (3) the ego-body-mind will and does find an infinite number of ways to avoiding actually doing anyting useful in accomplishing realization - round it goes, chasing its tail - no results, or very little are attined, and yet the rhetoric and justification is never ending.

So yes, practice for two or more hours a day; focus on awareness or some other object, rather than just sitting; and be aware of your own self-sabotaging habits - because, truly, a lifetime does slip by quickly, and nothing much changes at all - which means, yes, you will die just as truly unsatisfied as you are now, despite your secret hopes that that will change and your often self-repeated rhetoric that all will take care of itself, and there really is nothing to do. This is true of course, however, doing is part of non-doing, since there is no person that does, just doing itself; however, without the doing, nothing gets done. Certainly, there was a lot of doing to get through school and jobs and so on, and yet on a greater level of insight, there really is no one that does, but the doing is done none the less.

So do some practice is you want to see the results of realization, in which you will see for yourself that there is no one actually doing. Otherwise you're just kidding yourself!

In kind regards,

Adam.

[Ali-John]

Hi Adam,

I was intrigued by what you had to say. I can certainly identify with diving into awareness. I usually allow myself to "observe the now", and "surrender to the now" when I get too restless. These two teachings, by Eckhart Tolle have helped me to deepen my practice. I believe they are the same as awareness watching awarness. The Now IS awareness. I do this especially when I'm driving, as I live in the country, and have much highway driving to get from A to B.

I would very much like to talk with you about your own personal experience in meditating for more than two hours. It's always good to hear about others to encourage one's self on the Path. I practice sufism based on the teachings of Hazrat Inayat Khan. If you like, you can reach me at i.am.shadowspeak @ gmail.com (no spaces).

Thank you again, and hope to hear from you!

AJ*

[Mark]

I had some initial doubts about "Awareness Watching Awareness" but then came to see it as essentially the same as Nisargadatta's "I AM" practice. In both cases as well, intensive practice is prescribed which is the true hallmark of one sincere in the pursuit of Enlightenment.

[Brennan]

All comments aside, if this meditation is found to be effective for an individual in regards to calming and stilling the mind, then it is of merit. It appears to have had enough of an effect upon Michael Langford to prompt the writing of the book. But in the end, the question still needs to asked:

To whom is awareness of awareness?

[Peter Wang]

Brian, or any of you commenters further pursue Langford's practice? Did anyone achieve results.

Adam, is single pointedness concentration more effective?

Has anyone here finally subdued their ego or at most come to peace with their ego?

Or is the spiritual journey really just a sham and waste of time. Afterall it leads you back to where you are now. Is it just a self learning of your own thought process.

Does ever lasting bliss actually exist? Can thoughts truly be stopped as Ramana and Maharaj proclaim?

[Brian Hines]

Peter, I didn't pursue this "awareness watching awareness" approach much further. Maybe, any further.

As noted in some recent blog posts, I resonate with most of what Sam Harris has to say about "spirituality" being a recognition that the self doesn't exist.

Not our obvious bodily/mental self, but the notion of some immaterial essence (soul/spirit) that is the foundation of consciousness. Absent this -- and it almost certainly is indeed absent -- all we're doing in any form of meditative practice is exploring new and better ways of making the brain/mind function.

Which is no different from a physical exercise program. Just focused on mental rather than physical goings-on.

The sense of "I", Harris argues fairly persuasively, is caused by excessive rumination and thinking. This strikes me as quite true. When I'm just doing something -- picking up leaves, riding a bike, writing -- without thinking about what I'm doing, I do feel less of myself and more of the world.

(Which includes me, of course, but not as something entirely separate from the world.)

So, yes, I would say that the notion of a spiritual journey is a waste of time. There's no place to go outside of immediate here-and-now experience. You know the saying: Wherever you go, there you are.

I don't believe thoughts can be stopped. Why should they be? Thoughts aren't the problem. Non-useful thoughts are the problem. We tend to get into repetitive thought patterns that aren't directed toward any useful action, or whatever.

To my mind, bliss isn't permanent. If it was, that wouldn't be blissful. I'm with Alan Watts, and many others, on this. Life requires death. Bliss requires non-bliss. Dark requires light. Eternity requires time. We want to freeze things, to remove change from existence, to make it into one thing.

But that isn't how the world works.

[cc]

Thoughts aren't the problem. Non-useful thoughts are the problem.

Actually, for the same reason that "Life requires death. Bliss requires non-bliss. Dark requires light. Eternity requires time", useful thought requires non-useful thought. Without the distinction, thought is meaningless.

The "problem" is that problems exist to be solved by the mind, which can't exist without a problem. Until the mind understands its own nature, it is religious, i.e., obsessively yearning and striving for escape from its condition.

[Mits]

Isn't the 'one' who is watching changeless, timeless. My body grows old but this 'one' who silently watches never ages is and is always constant day in and out. I think Micheal Langford may have discovered something.

[Oola]

Haven't read all the comments. Just want to say that AWA still doesn't fit Brian's bill for being fast, just faster, possibly, than many other proposed techniques. Langford says it still takes years, and he spent as long as 12 hours in a day at it. My teacher said it took a couple of years to get to the first big break, but he didn't do AWA. He said the peace benefits unfolded in the years afterwards, almost only in retrospect. His was mostly the intellectual route, dismantling the evidence for separation. But he's had followers for years and years that aren't in the same place. And it's almost irrelevant to speak of those who had epiphanies since they can't be produced at will nor "practiced."

Warmest wishes to all.