A Course in Consciousness

This is a course in questioning and in seeing, not in believing. Question everything! Believe nothing! See directly!

Why are we dissatisfied with life?

We feel separate from our thoughts, feelings, and body sensations. We think they should not be the way they are so we try to change them. The more we try to change them, the more separate from them we feel.

We feel separate from the world

We think it should not be the way it is so we try to change it. The more we try to change it, the more separate from it we feel.

We feel separate from Reality

What is Reality, anyway? We yearn and yearn to know it. Yet, the more we yearn for it, the farther we seem to be from it.

Is there a pattern here?

Who is this I that is trying so hard? Maybe I is what we should investigate! But, that seems too hard and it might make our heads hurt. (Well do that later.) Lets start with something easy, like philosophy and physics. That might give us some answers and it might help us to avoid the hard questions!

The concept of objective reality

Objective reality is assumed to exist whether or not it is being observed. The existence of separate objects is assumed to be verifiable by observation, at least in principle. The common feature of all objects is that they are by definition separate from each other. This means that separation is a basic assumption so the observer-object is assumed to be separate from the observed-object. We will see later that these are all nothing but assumptions!

But, as we have seen, separation seems to be the source of our dissatisfaction!

We experience dissatisfaction if we perceive ourselves to be separate from... our thoughts, feelings, body sensations; the world; Reality.

The active components of objective reality

In addition to the basic assumptions, objective reality has three active components: 1) Observation of the object or its absence. 2) Communication of the observation to others. 3) Agreement with others on the existence or nonexistence of the object.

Still more on objective reality

Agreement is required because 1) We must agree on the definition of the object 2) The existence or nonexistence of the object must be confirmed by at least one other observer. If it is not confirmed, the existence or nonexistence of the object is indeterminate.

But, who is it that is agreeing?

All of our observations are nothing but mental impressions! If all of our observations are mental impressions (a mental impression for each of the five physical senses), how can we say that there is more than one observer? How can we say that we observe anything outside of the mind?

Questions about objective reality

Is there any proof that anything exists if you are not observing it? If you cite the reports of others, why would you believe them? They might exist only in your own mind! If you cite your sense impressions, why would you believe them? They exist only in your own mind!

The philosophy of materialism (pure objectivity) (Earliest materialists: Atomists Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus: 460-270 BC)
Everything is assumed to be matter (or, at least, it is governed by physical law). Space and time are assumed to be objectivethey are assumed to exist whether or not there is an observer. Matter is assumed to be objectiveit is assumed to exist whether or not there is an observer. If consciousness exists, it is assumed to be an epiphenomenon of matter with no independent existence of its own.

Personalized statement of materialism

I am a body. Do you agree with this statement? If so, are you all of the body or just parts of it? Which parts are you? Which parts are you not? Where in the body are you? What is this I that is a body? Is it material? Is it conscious?

Other questions about materialism

Which, if any, of the following are conscious, and what is the evidence for it? Cats and dogs? Plants? Microbes? Self-reproducing protein molecules (e.g., prions)? Inanimate objects (e.g., rocks)?

The philosophy of Cartesian dualism (objectivity plus subjectivity) (Ren Descartes, 1596-1650)
Descartes proposed that mind and matter are two fundamental, independent substances. He proposed that a mind is an indivisible conscious, thinking entity without physical size or spatial location. He proposed that a body is a divisible object that has physical size, i.e., it occupies space. He proposed that mind and body can interact with each other.

Personalized statement of Cartesian dualism:

I am a mind and I have a body. This implies that I am subjective but the body is objective. (Note that the complementary statement, I am a body and I have a mind, is a personalized statement of materialism.) Do you agree with the statement of Cartesian dualism? If so, are you all of the mind or just parts of it? Which parts are you? Which parts are you not? Where in the mind are you?

Other questions about Cartesian dualism

Similar questions as for materialism: Which objects have minds and which do not: Animals? Plants? Microbes? Prions? Rocks?

The philosophy of idealism (pure subjectivity)

Plato (380 BC), Berkeley (1710), Kant (1781)

Idealism is a Western philosophy that proposes that everything is Mind, and there is nothing but Mind. This is similar to the Eastern teaching of nonduality (next slide). Whereas, idealism is purported to describe Reality (assuming that Reality can be described), Nonduality is taught as a pointer to Reality (Reality cannot be described, only pointed to).

The teaching of nonduality (pure subjectivity)

Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950), Nisargadatta Maharaj (1887-1981), Ramesh Balsekar (1917-)

Nonduality teaches that Consciousness is Awareness plus all of the objects of Awareness . Awareness does not exist in space. Space is only a concept in the mind. Since space is only a concept in the mind, objects are not actually separate from each other. Therefore, separation is not real. It is only a concept.

Stages of manifestation and demanifestation

0) Pure unmanifest I (pure Awareness). 1) Appearance of the body and I Am (the birth of the infant as pure Presence). 2) Appearance of the concepts of boundaries and separation (the infant perceives objects). 3) Identification of I Am with the concept, I am Stanley (put in your own name). 4) Identification of I Am with the sense of personal doership (I observe, I think, I feel, I choose, I do), the appearance of dissatisfaction and anxiety. 5) Disappearance of the sense of personal doership, disappearance of dissatisfaction and anxiety, return to pure Presence (the sage). 6) Disappearance of pure Presence (death of the body). Return to pure Awareness.

The mind in nonduality

The mind is an object of Awareness. My mind includes all of my thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, and perceptions. Your mind includes all of your thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, and perceptions. Even though my mind is different from your mind, the Awareness of my mind is identical to the Awareness of your mind.

Questions about minds in nonduality

If space is only a concept in the mind, how can minds be separate? If minds are not separate, how can you see objects that I cannot see? If minds are in fact separate, how could you and I see the same objects? (Remember, there is no objective reality!)

Personalized statement of nonduality

I am pure Awareness/Presence. If space is only a concept in the mind, can there be any actual separation between me and pure Awareness/Presence? If space is only a concept in the mind, can there be any actual separation between you and me?

Classical physics
Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
Classical physics was assumed to be both materialistic and objective. Consciousness was not part of the theory. Classical objects were assumed to have separate, independent existences whether or not they were being observed. They were assumed to have definite properties, such as position, velocity, and orientation whether or not they were being observed. These properties were assumed to have no intrinsic uncertainties.

Classical physics (cont.)

Classical objects were assumed to be acted upon by classical forces such as electromagnetism and gravity. The laws of classical physics were deterministic. This means that the state of the universe in the future is assumed to be completely determined by the state of the universe in the present, which is assumed to be determined by the state of the universe in the past.

Questions about classical physics

How might our lives be different if there were no external objective reality but we did not know it? What if we did know it? How might our lives be different if the world were deterministic but we did not know it? What if we did know it? Suppose you accepted the principle of determinism as truth. How do you think you would then feel about your feelings, decisions, and actions? About other peoples feelings, decisions, and actions? How do you think it would affect your judgments about yourself and others?

In the late 1800s, problems arose with classical physics

It could not explain certain experiments (e.g., blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and line spectra of atoms). After 3 decades of trying to make classical theory work, physicists replaced it with quantum theory in the 1920s. (Why did it take so long?) In order to get a theory that successfully explained the experiments, physicists had to throw out the basic assumption that matter consisted of separate, independent, observable objects!

If quantum theory does not describe separate, independent, observable objects, what does it describe?
Quantum theory was originally formulated to describe only objective, physical phenomena. At first, it was intended to describe only microscopic phenomena, but now it is assumed to describe all physical phenomena, from elementary particles to the entire universe. It is the only physical theory we have at the present time. If it is incorrect, we have as yet no other theory to replace it. In every direct and indirect experimental test of quantum theory so far, the basic principles have been never been shown to be invalid.

In quantum theory, an interpretation is necessary

In classical physics, no interpretation was necessary because it was assumed that it described classical objects directly without an interpretation. However, quantum theory turned out to be purely mathematical and it was not obvious how to relate the mathematics to what, if anything, is being observed. An interpretation was needed for this but the interpretation was not self-evident.

In fact
there are many interpretations of quantum theory, almost as many as there are those who interpret it. We still dont know if there is a correct one and, if there is, we dont know what it is!

Nevertheless,
the mathematics of quantum theory is routinely used to predict the probability that an observation will yield a specific result (e.g., the probability that a position measurement will yield a specific position). This can be done without needing to know exactly what it is that is being observed (if, indeed, it is anything). It could be purely objective (objective reality); It could be partly objective and partly subjective (objective reality plus observer); Or it could be purely subjective (observer only); Or it could be none of the above.

Richard Feynman (1918-1988)

(Brilliant, creative, iconic theoretical physicist, and bongo drummer)

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. The Character of Physical Law (1960).

An interpretation is an attempt to relate quantum theory to some kind of reality

Physicists use different interpretations for different purposes. But in none of them is separation real so, if we feel separate, we still live in a pre-quantum world!

There are three general types of interpretations of quantum theory

Interpretation in terms of purely objective reality (ontological interpretation). Interpretation in terms of Cartesian dualism (objectivity plus subjectivity). Interpretation in terms of purely subjective reality (epistemological interpretation.

The Copenhagen interpretation

Born, Heisenberg, Schrdinger, Bohr (1925-1927)

Even though the Copenhagen interpretation is supposed to be the orthodox interpretation, there is widespread disagreement on it. Some physicists think it is purely objective. Some physicists think it is partly objective and partly subjective. And a few (very few) think it is purely subjective.

In the (orthodox) Copenhagen interpretation

space and time are assumed to be objectively real, but the only thing in space-time that is assumed to exist prior to an observation is a wavefunction that exists over all space.

Elementary description of a physical wave

A physical wave is a traveling oscillation. Physical waves carry energy and momentum. Examples: Water waves and electromagnetic waves. However, the quantum wavefunction is not a physical wave. It is a purely mathematical wave.

Big paradox: The wavefunction is purely mathematical, but is assumed to be objectively real!
The wavefunction is assumed to exist whether or not there are observations. It represents the probability (not the certainty) that a specific result will be obtained if the observer makes a specific type of measurement (e.g., position). It describes all of the possible results (e.g., all of the possible positions) that could be obtained , but cannot predict which result will actually be obtained.

Wavefunction collapse
At the moment of observation, the wavefunction is assumed to change irreversibly from a description of all of the possibilities (e.g., of position) that could be observed to a description of only the event that is observed. This is called wavefunction reduction, or wavefunction collapse.

The next observation

After an observation and wavefunction collapse, a new wavefunction emerges. It represents all of the possibilities that are allowed by the previous observation. Another observation results in another wave function collapse, etc. In this theory, any observation results from a stream of wavefunction collapses. Without wavefunction collapse, there are no observations.

The mind
Your mind consists of one stream of observations. My mind consists of another stream of observations. However, the wavefunction represents all possibilities and therefore predicts only the probability, not the certainty, that you will observe something. Similarly for me. It does not guarantee that what you see is the same thing that I see.

Consistency requires that collapse be nonlocal

The Copenhagen interpretation requires that wavefunction collapse happens over all space simultaneously or nearly simultaneously so that your observations are consistent with my observations, no matter how far apart we are. This is called nonlocal collapse. For example, suppose you and I set up an apparatus to drop no more than one B-B onto a table top (all described by the wave function), but we dont know in advance where it settles on the table top. Now, suppose you and I simultaneously or nearly simultaneously observe the table top. What prevents you from seeing a B-B at one place on the table while I see it in a different place?

But
What is meant by simultaneous or nearly simultaneous observations? That depends on the definition of simultaneous. But, no matter how simultaneity is defined, the same statement holds in the Copenhagen interpretation: Simultaneous or nearly simultaneous observations result from collapses of the same or nearly the same wavefunction.

*Side note
Albert Einsteins (1879-1955) invented the special theory of relativity in1905. Einstein made one assumption: The velocity of light in vacuum is a constant, independent of the relative velocity (also assumed to be constant) of two observers observing each other. (This assumption was consistent with the measurements of Michelson and Morley (1881)). Using only this assumption, Einstein proved that no physical effect, including information, can travel faster than the velocity of light. (This was also consistent with the measurements of Michelson and Morley.) This is now considered to be a physical law, more than just a theory, because it has been verified innumerable times both directly and indirectly. No experiment has ever invalidated it.

Nonlocality (cont.)
Einsteins special theory of relativity says that no physical effect can travel with a velocity greater than the velocity of light. Thus, there is no physical explanation for anything that happens over all space simultaneously or nearly simultaneously so there is no physical mechanism for nonlocal collapse. Therefore, nonlocal collapse can only result from a nonphysical mechanism.

A possibility that most physicists do not like to consider

It might be Awareness that causes wave function collapse. Awareness is not an object. It is what is aware of objects. Since It is not an object, It cannot be observed. Because It is not an object, It cannot be localized in space and time. Therefore, It is nonlocal. Because It is nonlocal, It could collapse the wavefunction so that what you observe is consistent with what I observe.

Wavefunction collapse (cont.)

Even if there were a physical mechanism for wavefunction collapse, it would produce nothing but a collapsed wavefunction. A collapsed wavefunction is not aware! It is only a collapsed wavefunction. Awareness exists on a different level from the objects of awareness. What you are aware of cannot be what is aware. The awareness of the observer is self-evident. It needs no proof. That you are aware is the only thing you can be certain of. Everything else is subject to definition, interpretation, and change.

Hidden-variables interpretations
David Bohm (1917-1992)
Particles are assumed to exist as classical particles whether or not they are observed (purely objective interpretation). They are assumed to be acted on by the classical forces, such as electromagnetism and gravity. In addition, the particles are assumed to be acted on by a quantum force, which is derived from the quantum wavefunction.

Nonlocality in hidden variables theories

In classical theory, there are no faster-than-light effects. Therefore, all effects are local. However, hidden variables theories are intrinsically nonlocal because the quantum force acts at all points in space simultaneously. Since hidden variables theories are purely objective theories, there is no explanation for how consciousness arises, or for which objects are conscious and which ones are not. In fact, consciousness is not even a concept in the theory.

Many-worlds interpretation
(Hugh Everett, 1930-1982)

Many-worlds is a purely objective interpretation. The entire universe is described by a single wavefunction. The wavefunction is assumed to exist as the only reality from the moment of the big bang. Since there can be no observer or observation that is separate from the universe, the wavefunction never collapses. At any moment that I (as part of the universe) make an observation, the wavefunction branches to manifest the world that I observe with a probability given by the wavefunction. There is no wavefunction collapse, but there is a manifestation of my world.

Nonlocality of the many-worlds interpretation

At the same moment that my world manifests, all of the other possibilities given by the wave function are manifested as other worlds. There is a me in every one of them. The different worlds cannot communicate with each other. Each time there is an observation, there are as many worlds manifested as there are possibilities in the wave function. Since there is no wavefunction collapse, the wavefunction of the universe continues forever. A world is manifest over all of its space simultaneously, thus, many-worlds is nonlocal. Since many worlds is an objective theory, there is no explanation for how the consciousness of the observer arises, for which objects are conscious and which ones are not, and for how the branching occurs.

Mark Everett (1963-), son of Hugh Everett and founder of Eels

My father never, ever said anything to me about his theories. I was in the same house with him for at least 18 years but he was a total stranger to me. He was in his own parallel universe. He was a physical presence, like the furniture, sitting there jotting down crazy notations at the dining room table night after night. I think he was deeply disappointed that he knew he was a genius but the rest of the world didnt know it. Marks father, Hugh died of a heart attack at age 51. His sister committed suicide at age 39 and his mother died two years later. His cousin and her husband were flight attendants who died in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Bells theorem
(John Steward Bell, 1928-1990)
Bell devised a way to determine experimentally whether reality could be described by local hidden variable theories, and he derived an inequality that was valid only if local hidden variable theories were valid. The inequality depended only on experimentally measured quantities, hence it was independent of any specific theory. Any violation of the inequality would prove that reality cannot be both objective and local.

Many experiments have shown that reality violates Bells inequality

Thus, reality cannot be both objective and local. Furthermore Futhermore, Aspect, et al. (1981-82) showed that reality is nonlocal. And Grblacher, et al. (2007) showed that, if hidden variables describes reality, reality must be bizarre and counterintuitive. Even before these experiments had been done, physicists had largely abandoned the assumption of classical particles. Thus, they had abandoned the assumption that material objects exist even if they not are observed.

The subjective interpretation

Christopher Fuchs (1964-)
In this interpretation, there is assumed to be no objective reality. There are only subjective experiences. The wave function is assumed to be nothing but a mathematical algorithm used to calculate the probability that a specific experience will follow another specific experience. Since there is no objective reality, there is no space-time and no nonlocality. Since there is no nonlocality, there is no problem of nonlocality.

One mind vs. many minds in the subjective interpretation

In a solipsistic interpretation, there is only one mind. Logically, this view can be neither proved nor disproved. In a nonsolipsistic interpretation, there are at least two minds. Logically, this view also can be neither proved nor disproved. In order for there to be communication between minds in the nonsolipsistic interpretation, agreement on the definition of what is observed is required. For example, you and I must agree on the definition of chair before we can talk about our observations of a chair. This is the agreement property of the subjective interpretation. Thus, even in the subjective interpretation, if there is more than one mind, agreement is required!

Minds may be different from each other, but are they separate?
Since any experience consists of a sequence of observations, all experiences are nothing but sequences of observations. Normally, we regard separate sequences to imply that there are separate observers making the observations. However, in the subjective interpretation, space is only a concept in the mind, so there can be no spatial separation between observers.

More questions about the subjective interpretation

Is it possible that the observer is nothing but a mental construct? What does the requirement for agreement between conscious observers imply about the separateness of the observers? In other words, if observers really are separate how can they communicate? (Remember, there is no objective reality in this interpretation, so there are no objects that different observers can observe and agree on.)

We shall use Schrdingers cat to illustrate the different interpretations

Erwin Schrdinger (1887-1961) Schrdinger invented the cat paradox to show that a microscopic wavefunction can have macroscopic consequences.

Schrdingers cat thought experiment

Radioactive source of microscopic particles Particle detector Bottle of poison gas Hammer to break bottle Cat

Schrdingers cat in the Copenhagen interpretation

Before the observer looks in the box, there are no objects in it. There is only a wavefunction. At the moment of observation, all macroscopic objects in the box are simultaneously manifested: particle detector, poison gas bottle, and live or dead cat. Manifestation cannot be described by the Schrdinger equation. Thus, consciousness is thought to be necessary.

Schrdingers cat in the hidden variables interpretation

All objects are objectively real and classical at all times. They are acted on by a quantum force as well as classical forces. The quantum force is nonlocal and acts on all objects simultaneously. Consciousness is not a required part of this theory.

Schrdingers cat in the many worlds interpretation

There is nothing but a wavefunction at all times. It describes all of the objects in the box. At the moment of observation, the wavefunction branches into two worlds, each described by its own wavefunction. In one world, the cat is alive. In another world, the cat is dead. Consciousness creates a branching, but itself is a mystery.

Schrdingers cat in the solipsistic subjective interpretation

There is no objective wavefunction, cat, particle detector, poison gas bottle, or cat. There is only a mind. Everything is an image in the one mind. Since there is only one mind, there is no need for communication or agreement between minds.

Schrdingers cat in the nonsolipsistic subjective interpretation

There is no objective wavefunction, cat, particle detector, poison gas bottle, or cat. These are only images in the minds. In order for there to be communication between the minds, there must be agreement on the definition of live cat and dead cat. If there is agreement on the definition, there can be communication about whether a live cat or dead cat is observed.

AgreementCommunication
In both the objective and subjective interpretations of quantum theory, there must be agreementin the objective case, on the definition of what exists or does not exist, and in the subjective case, on the definition of what is observed or what is not observed. But, agreement requires communication, and communication requires agreement. Therefore, is it possible that the need to communicate is our most basic need, even more basic than the need to survive? And, is it the heart that needs to communicate, is it the mind, is it neither, or is it both? Is the need to communicate a reflection of our innate connectedness?

The experiments of Benjamin Libet, et al. (1973)

Subject is told to lift a finger whenever he/she chooses. The EEG of subject is measured simultaneously with the EMG from the finger.

The results

The subject associates his/her awareness of the urge to act with his/her observations of the time on a clock. No separate muscle action is required. This process is repeated many thousands of times and the results are averaged. Result: The average EEG signal begins 0.3 s before any subjective impulse to lift the finger. Thus: The brain begins to process a muscle act prior to the subjective awareness of the urge to act!

The experiments of Soon, Brass, Heinze, and Haynes (2008)

Functional MRI measurements of the brain showed that the brain begins to process pushing the either the left button (dark voxels) or the right button (light voxels) up to 10 s before any awareness of the subjective urge to push a button. Instead of watching a clock, the subject watched letters being flashed on a screen every 0.5 s in random order. The randomness guaranteed that the subject could not anticipate the letters.

Conclusion
In objective time (time as measured by a clock or other instrument), any mental or sensory process happens before our awareness of it because the brain requires time to process an event before we become aware of it. Thus, all subjective experiences happen after the corresponding objective events. This applies to volitional experiences as well as nonvolitional ones.

Free will
Free will assumes that you can choose your thoughts. If you can choose your thoughts, why do you have thoughts that you dont want? Free will assumes that you can choose your feelings. If you can choose your feelings, why do you have feelings that you dont want? Free will assumes that you can choose your actions. If you can choose your actions, why do you do things that you dont want to do?

Exercises on free will

Try to stop thinking for 30 seconds. Were you successful? Try to stop feeling all body sensations for 30 seconds. Were you successful? Try to stop all muscle action for 30 seconds. Were you successful? If you cant control your thoughts, feelings, and actions, what can you control?

What can we control?

We experience thoughts, feelings, body sensations, and actions but we can observe directly that we have no control over them. We experience will but we can observe directly that it is not free.

The cause of suffering according to the sages

The sages tell us that suffering is a result of identification with the sense of doership and separation. We believe that we are the thinker, feeler, and chooser of our thoughts, feelings, emotions, and body sensations. We cling to them because we believe they are what we are and we simultaneously resist them because we judge them to be wrong or lacking.

Examples of identification as doer

I should not have these thoughts (I should have only pure thoughts). I should not have these feelings (I should have only pleasant feelings). I should not have these emotions (I should have only loving emotions). I should not have these body sensations (I should have only pleasant sensations). I should not behave the way I do (I should always behave compassionately). I should not be in this world (I should be in a more compassionate world).

More examples of identification

I want to change but I am afraid to change. I am afraid to give up my identity as being shameful, guilty, sad, angry, and anxious; or as compassionate, loving, confident, competent, and intelligent. If I dont cling to my identity, what will I be? How will I behave? What will I do?

The original suffering: Shame

Shame (original sin) is the thought that we are defective, incomplete, and separate. As long as we think we are separate, we will feel shame although it may be concealed by other feelings. Exercise: Notice the way you feel when you are feeling lonely, desolate, and isolated. That is the feeling of shame.

But, separation is not real!

Proof: Close your eyes, go inward and downward, and feel pure Presence. With your eyes closed, see if you can find any boundaries to it. If you can find any, where are they? If you cannot find any, how can there be any when your eyes are open?

Nonduality
Nonduality is the teaching that all there is is Consciousness and Consciousness is all there is. Symbolically, Consciousness is the circle (Awareness) and everything inside it (objects of Awareness).

Duality
Consciousness is always whole and unsplit. However, the mind tries to split Consciousness into parts (e.g., yin and yang) and then it names the parts. This process of separating and naming is called conceptualization. Anything that is thought to be separate from anything else is nothing but a concept. For example, the separation between yin and yang is nothing but a concept.

YANG YIN

The basic split

The mind tries to split Consciousness into me and not-me. In this teaching, this split is not real, therefore, I am not really separate from my body-mind and you are not really separate from me. However, the illusion of separation is extremely persistent. All spiritual practice has the aim of seeing through it. Clearly seeing through this illusion is called disidentification, enlightenment, awakening, or nirvana. With clear seeing comes the end of suffering.

Questions about concepts

Am I really separate from this thought? this feeling? this emotion? this sensation? this body? you? In other words, am I nothing but a concept?

Well, if I am not a concept, what am I?

In nondualistic teaching, I am Consciousness which is whole, unsplit, and purely subjective. That is my true nature and there never is any real separation.

How can suffering end?

We can begin to disidentify by shifting from the thinking mode to the being mode. Thinking mode is always in the past or future. Being mode is always in the present moment. Identification is weaker in the present moment. Hence, there is less suffering in the present moment.

When we are in thinking mode

We identify as doer.

As doer, we cling to our thoughts, feelings, emotions, and sensations. (Example: Jungs personaor mask.) We simultaneously resist other thoughts, feelings, emotions, and sensations. (Example: Jungs shadowor dark side.) Clinging and resisting gives structure to our lives and to our world, but they also prevent us from experiencing anything outside of our structure.

When we are in being mode

There is no clinging we do not cling to our thoughts, feelings, or emotions, and there is no resisting. we do not resist our thoughts, feelings, or emotions. Without clinging or resisting, there is no doingwe are disidentified from doership.

Spiritual practice
Spiritual practice helps to take us from the doing, identified mode, in which there is suffering; into the being, disidentified mode, in which there is no suffering. Spiritual practice helps to dissolve the separation between me and my thoughts, feelings, emotions, and body sensations. It helps to dissolve the separation between me and you. And it helps to make clear that there is no me to judge or to resist, nor is there an I that can do anything--including spiritual practice.

Spiritual practices
The paradox of spiritual practice: We have to do it in order to see that we are not doing it! There are many spiritual practices, almost as many as there are teachers. If a spiritual practice helps us to disidentify from what we think we are and to become aware of what we really are, it will reduce our suffering.

Inquiry: One form of spiritual practice

There are two basic kinds of inquiry: self-inquiry (lower case), and Self-inquiry (upper case).

What is self-inquiry (lower case)?

self-inquiry is the investigation of the I.
Ask the question, who is it that is thinking this? Then, look and see if you can see the thinker. Ask the question, who is it that is feeling this? Then, look and see if you can see the feeler. Ask the question, who is it that is suffering? Then, look and see if you can see the sufferer. Ask the question, who is it that is doing this? Then, look and see if you can see the doer. Ask the question, who is it that is observing this? Then look and see if you can see the observer.

What do you see?

If you see a thinker, feeler, sufferer, doer, or observer, can it be you? What is it that sees them? If you dont see a thinker, feeler, sufferer, doer, or observer, can there be one?

What is Self-inquiry (upper case)?

Self-inquiry is the investigation of the true I, which is pure Awareness, or pure Being. Ask, what is it that is aware? Then turn inward and look and see. If you see something, it cant be what is seeing because it is what is being seen. (Remember, anything you can see cannot be you.) So, if you cant see it, but it is what is seeing, then what are you?

Another form of Self-inquiry.

This is a simple but very effective disidentification practice. Whenever you are suffering, become present to the experience of the moment. This takes you out of doing mode in which you have never had any control ... and puts you in being mode in which you see that there is no need for control.

Meditation
Meditation is best learned from an experienced teacher. You may have to try out several teachers and several forms of meditation to find one that will help you to accept yourself as you are and to realize your true nature. A widely taught form of Buddhist meditation is called Vipassana and consists of two aspects: Concentration Mindfulness

Concentration
Concentration is required for mindfulness. With eyes closed, we slowly scan the body from the feet to the head, and feel the body sensations from the inside. We then put the attention on the breath. The attention will wander and we will become lost in thought. Whenever we notice that we have been lost, we bring the attention back to the breath. We do this a million times. Each time we become aware of having been lost, it is another awakening!

Mindfulness
Mindfulness requires concentration. We can practice mindfulness in either meditation or in activity. We notice our thoughts and feelings as they arise. We don't ignore them or suppress them, nor do we analyze or judge them. We simply observe them intentionally and nonjudgmentally, moment by moment, as they arise in the field of our awareness. If we experience a distressing thought or feeling or actual physical pain, we open to the unpleasantness and see it clearly without trying to change it or to escape from it .

Mindfulness (cont.)
We notice whether it is we who are thinking our thoughts and feeling our feelings, or whether they arise and fall spontaneously. If we see that it is we who are thinking or feeling them, who/what is it that sees this? If we see that they arise and fall spontaneously, what does that imply about the existence of a thinker or feeler?

Satchidananda is the experience of disidentification

Sat: Beingness, Presence Chid: Consciousness, Awareness Ananda: Peace, Bliss

Namaste
I as Awareness/Presence acknowledge you as Awareness/Presence.