After Awareness- The End of the Path

by Greg Goode

  Why Use a Witness Idea in the First Place?

  Why is the witness tool used, as opposed to some other tool? Many people don’t resonate with the witness, and many paths don’t use it. But many people do resonate with it. Many people have mystical or deeply intuitive experiences, even as children. When they encounter spiritual teachings, they find the idea of a global awareness that serves as the nature of the self and all things profoundly resonant. For people with these resonances, the idea of witnessing awareness as used in the direct path offers three main practical virtues.

  One virtue is that the witness teaching tool is very intuitive. Even though the witness isn’t a mind, it’s similar to how we think of our everyday experience. In an everyday sense, “I” think things appear to “me.” The witness teaching retains this overall idea about experience. It merely redefines what the appearances are appearing to. The result is a very simple and intuitive teaching.

  Another virtue is that the witness teaching allows extremely subtle dualities to be examined and then dissolve. Dualities include classic opposites such as good/evil, right/wrong, popular/unpopular, love/hate, here/there, and us/them. More subtle dualities include self/other, mental/physical, and body/mind. Even more subtle and abstract dualities include truth/falsity, one/many, and subject/object. The witness teaching in the direct path has ways of seeing through all of these dualities. It’s a very effective tool, one that’s able to go “all the way” in this teaching.

  The last virtue is that the witness teaching is “eco-friendly.” By this I mean it’s a teaching that cleans up after itself. It dissolves when no longer needed, and it leaves no lasting attachments to its tools and notions. This even includes the notion of awareness itself.

  Some inquirers might think that these three points aren’t virtues at all. The approach may sound too casual. An inquirer might say, “Well, if you’re saying that witnessing awareness is just a tool after all and not a true reality, then why do I need it? Just show me what’s really true. I don’t need any tools in order to attain realization—many teachings say so.”

  Yes, there are teachings that advise you to avoid tools, inquiries, practices, and provisional teachings. They assert that you are the ultimate here and now and that nothing is required.

  But notice the irony here. The very teachings directing you away from tools are themselves serving as tools. As tools, they’re employed to have a performative effect on the listener. Most often, those tools attempt to hide their status as tools and masquerade as final truths, whereas the direct path’s tools are transparent about their role as tools.

  If you follow a spiritual teaching of some sort, you’ll be using a tool. So you might as well try various tools and go with what works for you!

  For me, the witness teaching fits the bill nicely. All three points about the witness teaching worked well for me in my investigations. I found the teaching to be intuitive, far-reaching, and ultimately able to collapse on its own when no longer needed. It fit nicely with Western approaches I had devoted myself to earlier in life, including those of Brand Blanshard and George Berkeley.

  How Many Witnesses Are There?

  A typical non-dual answer to the “How many witnesses?” question is “one.” This answer is practical. It gets the main message across, which is “not two or more.” Hearing “one” helps prevent people from thinking “many.” It helps lead them away from the easy assumption that awareness is the mind, and thus there must be as many awarenesses as there are minds. But “one” isn’t literally or empirically true.

  Awareness isn’t an appearing object, so it’s not countable. Awareness would be countable if by “awareness” we meant the mind, which tends to be separate from person to person and being to being. Awareness would be countable if it were something like smoke. A hotel could have a hundred rooms filled with smoke. There could even be many different kinds of smoke, depending on the nature of the materials being burned. But awareness isn’t like this. It can’t be broken up or compartmentalized by appearances. Because awareness, according to the direct path, isn’t an object and isn’t able to be broken up, it can’t be a countable thing. Numbers don’t make sense when applied to it.

  Because numbers don’t make sense when applied to awareness, it doesn’t make sense to truly insist that there’s exactly one awareness. Insisting on “one” awareness objectifies it and entails the logical possibility that there could be multiple awarenesses. But the non-multiplicity of awareness is more radical than this. It’s not a matter of numbers.

  So what can we say about the non-multiplicity of awareness? If I were to look at the direct path from a philosophical or spiritual perspective that was rhetorical, functional, or minimalist, I’d say that witnessing awareness is a kind of formal requirement that goes along with the language of appearances. That is, when we speak of appearances appearing, we need to supply something for them to appear to. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be seen.

  The more you have an intuitive feel for tapping into something larger than the visible world, the more you may resonate with the idea of awareness as used in the direct path.

  When teachers of the direct path say non-dual-sounding things, such as “Awareness is the self,” these slogans address intuitions about how appearances are structured. That is, when something appears, people feel that they’re on the subject side rather than the object side of the event. The direct path merely gives the name of “awareness” to this subjectivity and expands on it.

  More Than One?

  The direct path differs from views that posit more than one awareness. For example, in our everyday way of speaking, we think of each person as having a separate awareness. This is because we think of awareness as coming from brain activity. There are many brains, so there must be many “awarenesses” (though we wouldn’t pluralize this word in everyday life).

  Another view that posits many awarenesses is the Geluk order of Tibetan Buddhism. According to this school, there are as many awarenesses as there are appearing objects.52 This system of Buddhism posits sensory awarenesses, mental awarenesses, and yogic awarenesses. Each type of awareness is multiple, because there’s one awareness per object, and there are many objects. In this type of Buddhism there’s no notion of awareness that does the same work as the awareness concept in the direct path. The direct path is located in the Hindu tradition of Vedanta, and conceptualizes awareness differently.

  Less Than One?

  The direct path differs from types of inquiry that posit no awareness at all. For example, modern neuroscience would probably answer the “How many awarenesses?” question with “zero.”53 Some of this research tends to favor the reduction of mind to molecules and brain functions. The research implies that molecules and their pathways exist but that “mind” doesn’t exist in the same way. The mind and its awareness are no more than epiphenomena of molecular activity. There’s no other candidate for awareness in this branch of science. There’s no universal or mystical awareness lying behind everything.

  Of course neuroscience isn’t intended as a spiritual path. But I know a number of people who practice an informal sort of metascience as a way to lend gravitas to the conceptuality behind their spiritual activities. If the mind is nothing other than molecules, then the “self” can’t possibly be the mind. The notion that “I am the mind” is one of the most tenacious false ideas we have about ourselves. Because science can help free us from this false idea, it can be a powerful ally to self-inquiry.

  One per Person?

  The direct path also differs from spiritual paths (such as orthodox monotheism) that assert one soul or awareness per person. In the orthodox paths, God is said to be one, but the person’s awareness or mind or soul isn’t identified with God. The spiritual work is done not through that kind of non-dual insight but through more traditional spiritual means. Of course the orthodox paths have esoteric or hidden branches, which tend to accord a lot more closely with non-dual approaches. But if you enter monotheism by walking throu
gh the temple doors, you’re likely to encounter the orthodox approach first.

  So How Many Really?

  Zero? One? More than one? Surely one of these must be correct!

  I don’t consider this issue to be a matter of fact or a matter of right or wrong. In my own experience with paths that disagree on these issues, I don’t try to settle the disagreements metaphysically. I don’t think of it as an empirical question, such as the number of eggs in a basket. That is, I don’t ask, “How many awarenesses are there really—regardless of paths, concepts, models, or background assumptions? What’s the objective truth of the matter?” I see no way that questions such as these can make any sense. It’s not that I believe that there’s a true answer out there. Rather, the question has assumed objective matters of fact that aren’t verified by experience.

  So I take a practical route. I don’t assume a priori metaphysical certainties or universal answers that are supposed to apply beyond all possible concepts and conditions. I say: “Let’s see what happens if I take this path. If I do what it says, will I go where it goes?” In the case of the direct path, my experience is that it works as advertised.

  How Does the Witness Teaching Work?

  The witness teaching looks closely at experience, showing you how to deconstruct dualistic perspectives. The witness teaching makes it clear that there’s no evidence for distinctions such as self/other, observer/observed, here/there, one/many, and other fundamental dualisms.

  The witness teaching moves from the gross to the subtle. Beginning with the “outer world,” it allows you to discover that there’s no physical object experienced apart from color, sound, texture, flavor, aroma, or other sensations. Then you discover that there’s no sensation without the appropriate sensory modality, such as seeing, hearing, or touching. Then you discover that there’s no evidence of seeing or hearing independent of witnessing awareness. The only common and stable factor is witnessing awareness. Nothing is ever experienced to be present other than witnessing awareness.

  You may often hear that “There are no objects.” Taken by itself, this phrase can be misleading. It implies that in your inquiry you may find stuff missing. But that’s not how it goes. You don’t look everywhere inside of awareness and everywhere outside of awareness and come back to report that all objects are absent where you expected them to be present. You don’t discover nothingness in place of an object that happens to be absent.

  What you discover is much more radical. You find that the entire experiential structure that assumes objects exist is simply not verified by direct experience. There no longer seems to be a place for objects or absences of objects. You find no stage setting decorated with objects, no missing objects, and no seats to hold a separate observer. You find no “there.” The entire setup becomes dismantled into loving clarity and peace. Earlier in your path, objects and your observation of them may have felt like necessary parts of your experience. But through your investigation, all this is pacified.

  But Maybe the World Really Does Exist

  Many inquirers get an idea about the direct path that causes them concern. The idea is that the direct path looks all around and concludes that the world doesn’t exist. This concern arises because of how the direct path differs from most people’s everyday perspective: the perspective in which the world is said to truly exist in an objective way. When this objectivist perspective is challenged, it can be scary.

  Even at the beginning of the direct path, this perspective is investigated, and it isn’t always a comfortable process. When you do direct-path inquiries, you can begin to feel as if you’re missing a great big world out there. It can feel as though you’re denying reality. You may think:

  What about the stuff outside of awareness? Maybe the world really exists as it seems to, but we’re unable to verify it in an objective way. Maybe we’re brains in vats. Maybe we’re computer simulations in a real, extraterrestrial world, and our experience is just programmed to look as it does. Maybe all this non-dual inquiry isn’t able to really give us any true certainty about the world.

  So rather than saying that there’s no world independent of awareness, isn’t it better to say that we just can’t be sure? We can’t be sure one way or another whether there’s a world out there. Isn’t this a more modest, humble, and accurate way to state how things are?

  This concern is common for most people who investigate deeply. It’s a concern derived from the realist account of experience, in which our personal experience is said to be caused by objectively real objects impinging upon the sensory membranes of the organism. According to the realist everyday account, things in the world are real. They already exist whether they’re perceived or not. The organism may or may not come into contact with things. It may or may not receive sensations from them. But the objects exist all the same. An unperceived object is no less real than a perceived object. The difference is only whether the organism has come into contact with it.

  In realism, the organism’s contact with an object sets up a chain of causation. The cause begins in the object and the surrounding conditions. The effect is the organism’s experience. Sometimes the experience is said to “correspond” to the object, as when an experience of water is caused by water. Sometimes the experience is said not to correspond to the object, as in cases of illusions. For example, a mirage in the desert looks like water, but it’s really just an effect of light rays, heat, refraction, sand, and perhaps wishful thinking on the part of the observer.

  The realist account is designed to hold up even in the case of illusions. That is, regardless of whether experience is said to correspond to objective reality or not, the overall causal chain is similar: something outside of the organism’s experience is said to cause the organism’s experience.

  The skeptical view of realism is that we just can’t know for sure whether there’s a world. This feels like a safer statement, one that’s less likely to be proved incorrect. Notice two interesting things about the skeptic’s approach. First, it doesn’t support realism. It’s actually a challenge to the realist’s account of causation. The realist is claiming that experience is caused in a certain way. The skeptic is saying that we can’t know whether this is true. The realist is unable to answer the skeptic. The realist tendency to cite more and more causal chains won’t convince the skeptic that the realist account is truly accurate. Second, even though this type of “we can’t be sure” skepticism isn’t intended to support realism, it does so nevertheless.54 Even though the skeptic doesn’t accept any particular realist account about experience, the skeptic accepts a causal account in general. The skeptic seems to be saying that something must be objectively true—we just can’t be sure what. We can’t be skeptical in this sense unless we have an underlying belief endorsing realism.

  But the direct path’s approach is so radically different from realism that even the skeptic’s cautionary statements say too much. The direct path isn’t offering a competing causal account of experience. The direct path doesn’t seek to show how experience happens. The direct path doesn’t assume that objects exist either inside or outside of experience.

  In fact, one of the subtleties of the direct path is that it doesn’t conceptualize experience as having an inside or outside. It doesn’t use spatial metaphors to describe experience or awareness.

  To think of experience as having an inside or outside is to regard experience as if it were a physical object. It makes experience analogous to a very large shopping bag. In everyday terms, a shopping bag can have objects inside of it and outside of it. Objects can move from the inside to the outside and from the outside to the inside. But to think of experience in this way is to commit a category mistake. Making a category mistake is defined as attributing a property to something that couldn’t possibly have that property—for example, attributing free will to brain tissue or thinking that green ideas sleep furiously. Attributing physical properties to witnessing awareness (including the properties of location and containment) is a prim
e case of a category mistake. It’s a case of being seduced by the container metaphor of experience.

  The direct path doesn’t physicalize or localize experience. Instead, the direct path explores the reality of experience, looking into its nature and ramifications. The exploration never ends up verifying duality or separation. Nothing turns up missing. The exploration leads instead to the discovery of wholeness, intimacy, immediacy, sweetness, and joy.

  Witnessing awareness, which is another term for experience, isn’t conceptualized as an object, a container, a place, or a state. It’s not thought of as an illuminated region or an exalted energy throughout space. It has no spatial or phenomenal qualities. It doesn’t decide or remember anything. It performs no actions or functions. It isn’t a cause. Its characterizations tend to be minimalist, such as being “that to which appearances appear.” Shri Atmananda calls it the “I-principle.” To the extent that you can come to see the “I” as a principle, you are freed from the idea that the “I” is the body or the mind. Seeing the “I” as a principle is a lighter, freer and more open way to think of yourself. It also reduces the impulse you may have to visualize awareness as something physical. And as your inquiry proceeds, there comes a point at which you don’t even think about it anymore!

  This is the approach taken in the direct path. The direct path isn’t making another set of realist claims. It’s not offering a story to compete with scientific theories of reality. So even the skeptic’s warning doesn’t apply to the direct path. You don’t even have to discard the scientific account. If you’re a scientist or psychological researcher, and you take up direct path–style investigation, what you’ll discover is a wide-open freedom in which these two approaches don’t compete with each other. You’ll discover that the direct path’s joyful irony and freedom from competition serve to keep the approaches out of each other’s way. There’s no conflict. You might even begin to be more creative!