Question about the witness.

I have this state that I can enter in which there's awareness and also the "knowing" of that awareness. In this state i feel aligned with the present moment and visual objects becomes very beautiful and interesting, much like what kenneth is talking about in the direct path video, when he is describing the feedback mechanism. Is this the witness? I feel that the knowing part can't be taken as an object, the knowing is awareness itself and I can only "be" in the state, not observing the knowing. Am I practicing "the witness" or am I doing something else?

Best regards,
Anaj

Have a look at this interview by Kenneth Re: The Witness

www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/the-witnes...-the-light-around-2/

I read that, but it is still very unclear to me

Hi Anaj,

You seem to be describing direct mode, rather than the Witness. The Witness is about turning the attention around to investigate the sense of "knowing" itself, in which case external objects are seen as aspects of self, and are not particularly interesting. During direct perception mode, on the other hand, you can only be whole, with no possibility of seeing the knower as separate from what is known. Objects are beautiful and compelling during DM, which is consistent with your descriptions.

Kenneth

I can sense the knowing, but I can't take it as an object of awareness. I've tried to ask "Who am I?" but nothing happens. Another question, should the sense of "I Am" have a location in the body?

Anaj

The sense of "I am" sometimes does seem to have a location in the body, but it can move around or expand out into the environment or even seem to have no location at all depending on conditions. In short, it doesn't matter what the location is; you can just let it be what it is.

Having said that, there are techniques for entering the witness and one of them is to notice that you can see your own nose. This makes you aware that "you" seem to be inside the skull, looking out. From there, you "turn the light of attention around," becoming interested in this apparent knower as opposed to what is known. At this point, you become the witness. Everything is subject. When even the subject goes away, there is no separation of subject and object.

With direct mode, on the other hand, you make no attempt to be aware of the subject. You allow yourself to be drawn into the five physical senses. The trick is to remain undivided. So you see that the Witness and DM are two very different orientations. The witness is about turning the mind back on itself while DM is about remaining undivided. Both practices, however, eventually lead to the de-bunking of the "I" as anything other than a trick of the mind.

Ok, i will try this and also continue the direct mode practice. Thanks Kenneth for all the effort you put into this community, it's really something.

anaj.

To add a zest of Zen to the discussion, this reminds me of Linji's teaching systems called the four propositions:

(1) To take away man and not to take away objects '” warm days appear and brocade is laid out on the earth; baby's hairs falling are like threads.
(2) To take away objects and not to take away man '” the king's orders are promulgated and circulate over the empire; generals take their ease outside the stronghold.
(3) To take away both men and objects '” to live in a retreat cut off from all communication.
(4) Not to take away either men or objects '” a king ascends to a jeweled palace and old peasants sing gaily

As far as practice is concerned:
- To take away man and not to take away object would be the '˜direction perception mode'
- To take away objects and not to take away man would be '˜the witness'
- To take away both men and objects would be '˜cessation' or '˜emptiness of self and phenomena'
- Not to take away either men or objects would be '˜allowing everything to be as it is'

The same system can be used during question-answer sessions (sanzen). As an example, the student may say something right but that does not reflect his present insight. In this case, the teacher would 'take away man and not to take away object', correcting the student while validating his view.

Hey Alex.

How does Linji conceptualize the unfolding of practice according to the above propositions. Are they sequential or simultaneous practices?

Also, would his view on the matter be considered an orthodox Zen view, if there can be said to be such a thing?

Mark

Hi Mark,

Linji (Jp. Rinzai) does conceptualize the four propositions. In the Linji Lu (Jp. Rinzai Roku) he only offers them with symbolic riddles. They can refer to stages of development, to practice methods or to way of dealing with students. The latter is a key to understand the logic of Zen koans.

When they refer to stages of development, they tend to match the mainstream Mahayana path, namely '˜emptiness of self', '˜emptiness of phenomena', '˜emptiness of self and phenomena' and '˜emptiness of emptiness' (going beyond the beyond).

Now when it comes to practice, Thich Nhat Hahn tends to share my interpretation. Same for Chinul (the founder of the largest lineage of Korean Zen). In this respect also, Zen master Sheng-yen calls 'direct perception', 'direct contemplation'. Nothing new here.

Can his view on the matter be considered an orthodox Zen view? My interpretation may not, but Linji is THE authority for all branches of Linji Ch'an (or Rinzai Zen in Japan), as he is no less than the founder of this particular lineage.

If Rinzai Zen is not as popular as Soto Zen in Japan (since it is more demanding), it is the main -if not the only- lineage represented in China, Taiwan, Vietnam and Korea.

Best,

Alex