Transcending the witness (video)

[caspex]

I remember talking to a guy on the spirituality sub-reddit and it went completely over his head how there could be no experiencer, at all. Using his logic and experience, he determined yes he wasn't his personality etc. but their was indeed a witness and it's logically impossible there couldn't be a witness. He concluded he had transcended selfhood, and all that stuff, because he saw he wasn't his body and mind. This was half a year ago I believe, however this really put into perspective for me how most of the people who are into spirituality are not very deep in their path. Not that I fancy myself anywhere deep, I just find it weird that even this 'simple' ego-death isn't of common experience in the spiritual community. 

So I made this video. Might help someone.

This might or might not be adding to the forum. Like most here, I am also very picky as to what I wanna self promote, I do not want to promote anything that doesn't actually provide value to the forum, so please let me know. 

[Thought Art]

I will watch shortly but, the experiencer isn't the ego right? 

The experiencer is no self and the ego is the accumulations and survival patterns?

What is the difference from the 'experiencer' and raw direct experience and being?

[caspex]

1 minute ago, Thought Art said:

I will watch shortly but, the experiencer isn't the ego right? 

The experiencer is no self and the ego is the accumulations and survival patterns?

What is the difference from the 'experiencer' and raw direct experience and being?

In my vocab I call ego the very essence of feeling like a self, an experiencer. The accumulations of survival patterns etc. is what I call the personality.

[Thought Art]

@Swarnim Okay. From my reading and studies the ego is both is the personality and the sensation of self  which is relative and there are many in each of us. 

I've experienced a total collapse of everything into what I believe is the Godhead. There was still something there that 'was'.  Sort of an all loving infinite potential 'nothing'. Everything Now.

I've had this experience of just the experience. But, I still need to contemplate this deeper. I think there is a selfless witness which is no one.

There is a Raw experience beyond the witness. I wonder, how do you define witness?

I know I am not wording myself well ahah

Edited January 3, 2022 by Thought Art

[Shambhu]

Let me share what I have been taught, which squares with my experience.

The witness, "sakshi" in sanskrit, is no different from the Self, or Atman.  It is pure consciousness.  It is that which is aware or knows.  You can speak of pure experience, but there is no experience unless it is known.  By it's very definition, it requires consciousness.

Now the deluded intellect can conceptualize the witness and make it another object, but if the witness is witnessing another witness, you end up with an infinite regress.  If you say there is no witness, you create an absurdity.  It is equivalent to saying there is only unknown experience.

It is true that the witness is not a discreet entity, which is a common mistake, but there are remedies for that, such as guided inquiry to "dissolve" the imagined boundaries.

As for the ego, "ahamkara" in sanskrit, it is the sense of doership.  It literally means "I doer."  In the West it has a slightly different meaning, but it is still comparable, relating to agency or an actor.

[caspex]

9 hours ago, Shambhu said:

Let me share what I have been taught, which squares with my experience.

The witness, "sakshi" in sanskrit, is no different from the Self, or Atman.  It is pure consciousness.  It is that which is aware or knows.  You can speak of pure experience, but there is no experience unless it is known.  By it's very definition, it requires consciousness.

Now the deluded intellect can conceptualize the witness and make it another object, but if the witness is witnessing another witness, you end up with an infinite regress.  If you say there is no witness, you create an absurdity.  It is equivalent to saying there is only unknown experience.

It is true that the witness is not a discreet entity, which is a common mistake, but there are remedies for that, such as guided inquiry to "dissolve" the imagined boundaries.

As for the ego, "ahamkara" in sanskrit, it is the sense of doership.  It literally means "I doer."  In the West it has a slightly different meaning, but it is still comparable, relating to agency or an actor.

@Shambhu I see, from witness what I mean is the deepest layer of the false self, devoid of both the body and the mind. Which can, if focused on itself, regress enough to peel off the last layer and suddenly is left with nothing. Logically it sounds absurd but experientially it's the truth. 

Quote

It is that which is aware or knows

In what I am trying to describe, even 'that' is part of the experience. You can't say "There is something that is aware or knows" because even 'that' just is. I think though we mean the same thing since you said it's pure consciousness, which is what I am pointing towards too. 






 

 

11 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Swarnim Okay. From my reading and studies the ego is both is the personality and the sensation of self  which is relative and there are many in each of us. 

I've experienced a total collapse of everything into what I believe is the Godhead. There was still something there that 'was'.  Sort of an all loving infinite potential 'nothing'. Everything Now.

I've had this experience of just the experience. But, I still need to contemplate this deeper. I think there is a selfless witness which is no one.

There is a Raw experience beyond the witness. I wonder, how do you define witness?

I know I am not wording myself well ahah

@Thought Art This is probably beyond what I am talking about in the video. As I said in the video, even if you go beyond that witness, it's not guaranteed you'll experience some sort of oneness or anything, let alone God. 

By witness I just mean what's left when you completely disidentify with both the body(including of internal and external bodily feelings, behaviors and emotions) and the mind(which includes, all levels of thinking, personality, memories, meness, etc.).

[Shambhu]

7 hours ago, Swarnim said:

@Shambhu I see, from witness what I mean is the deepest layer of the false self, devoid of both the body and the mind. Which can, if focused on itself, regress enough to peel off the last layer and suddenly is left with nothing. Logically it sounds absurd but experientially it's the truth. 

If you have reached a level that is beyond body and mind, then what remains?  That is pure awareness.  However, the mind is tricky, and it can create a subtle conceptualization of consciousness, which can in turn be mistaken for consciousness itself.

I have heard of a few teachers speak of "dissolving the witness," and I think such a teaching can be useful if the student is guilty of the above.  If someone tries to make global awareness into a discreet entity, then dismantling their concept of an individual witness could be very useful.  For someone who understands that the witness is not an agent, this approach might be confusing.  This is why I always recommend a skilled teacher to people, instead of just attempting to wake up through books or videos.  There are nuances that need to be navigated around.

7 hours ago, Swarnim said:

I think though we mean the same thing since you said it's pure consciousness, which is what I am pointing towards too. 

Yes, I think we are in all likelihood describing the same thing.

7 hours ago, Swarnim said:

This is probably beyond what I am talking about in the video. As I said in the video, even if you go beyond that witness, it's not guaranteed you'll experience some sort of oneness or anything, let alone God. 

By witness I just mean what's left when you completely disidentify with both the body(including of internal and external bodily feelings, behaviors and emotions) and the mind(which includes, all levels of thinking, personality, memories, meness, etc.).

In Vedanta, realization is a two phased process.  The first movement is from the non-Self to the Self.  The inquirer must discriminate between what is their true identity and what are their false identities (all physical and mental objects).  Ultimately, they will arrive at pure awareness, but as you have said, they may still not realize non-duality.  In fact, they most likely will not.  That is what takes place in the second phase.  In phase two, everything that is not the Self (pure consciousness) is found to be false, like the horns of a rabbit.  There is only pure consciousness, and that is non-duality.