--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is the Institutionalization of "Witnessing" (sAkSi) a Recipe for 
Mass  
> Psychosis?
> 
> Potentially, it is.
> 
> The principle of Sakshi (sAkSi) or witness-consciousness is a 
well  
> known evolutionary stance present in a number of traditions. From 
my  
> experiential POV (srsti) and both the advaita of Gaudapada and  
> Buddhist atiyoga, the development of witness-consciousness and 
it's  
> natural resolution is a natural part of inner evolution. In  
> bioenergetic terms this often begins at the level of the hrdyam, 
the  
> heart chakra. When awareness is centered there, the 
witness "awakens"  
> during the deep sleep phase. As presence evolves, this is carried 
on  
> to the throat chakra and witnessing becomes present during 
dreaming  
> sleep. As presence is integrated at the level of the ajna-chakra,  
> witnessing pervades the waking state. These are all preludes to  
> samadhi and therefore pre-samadhic states of integratation. It is  
> only above the ajna that samadhi truly can be said to occur.
> 
> These are not however linear phenomenon, they can occur in any 
order  
> based on the our own unique subtle physiology. In some people, 
they  
> may not occur at all. Some traditions (Dzogchen atiyoga) even  
> approach these as unified states of awareness rather than 
residual,  
> dualistic witnessing states pointing at unitary states.
> 
> But what happens when witnessing becomes an 
institutionalized "idea",  
> a dogma? Does it lead to the "real thing"? Or does it present an  
> altogether different situation, one where a "favored" and sought  
> after experience is replaced with the genuine article? Since 
there  
> are so many meditative and psychologically pathologic states 
which  
> *resemble* witness-consciousness this situtation can become 
extremely  
> problematic in institutions which by design or by accident 
elevate  
> "witnessing" to some important status.
> 
> In term of it's evolutionary status, what witnessing represents 
in  
> Hindu forms of meditation is a form of consciousness whereby the  
> unconscious mind can unburden itself of patterns which are no 
longer  
> helpful and set the stage for more unitary modes of awareness (or  
> consciousness). Since, in the state of realtive ignorance, we 
still  
> have much attachment to neagtive thoughts, emotions and patterns  
> (obscurations or avarana); witnessing these without being involved 
in  
> them is an evolutionary stance for purification of our own  
> consciousness.
> 
> "Other" states which can be mistaken for witnessing:
> 
> -psychosis
> 
> -high "vata"
> 
> -over-meditative spaciness /over-meditation/ non-regulation of 
practice
> 
> -unbalanced kundalini awakening or diverted awakenings
> 
> -dissociation
> 
> -depersonalization
> 
> -extreme fear
> 
> -non-integrated issues or issues we cannot face or repressed 
issue  
> which are resurfacing which we cannot face
> 
> -trauma and post traumatic stress disorder
> 
> -unprocessed and undigested issues of any kind
> 
> 
> So how do we know and assure that the states of consciousness we 
are  
> trying to develop are in fact witness-states and not some form of  
> dissociation, meditative disturbance or psychosis? We know by  
> engaging in proper methods and by being instructed in the proper  
> signs and fine-points of their practice and cultivation. We also 
know  
> by observing ourselves and knowing ourselves: observing body (the  
> condition of our body), Mind and Voice (our energy or subtle body).
> 
> Witness-consciousness, like any other state, has it's methods. If 
you  
> haven't been instructed in these techniques, you should be 
therefore  
> wary of institutions that put them out in front, like a spiritual  
> "carrot", without giving you proper instruction or technique.
>

There are so many ways we can trick ourselves when first starting 
out to enrich our lives through meditation. The proof is always in 
the result. If everything is "God" and "Bliss" and "Buddha" and "The 
Way" and "The Path" and "The Self" but we cannot achieve what we 
want, then looking at things differently is warranted. It is as 
simple as that. There is nothing so convincing as day to day 
reality, no matter what we choose to believe. 


Reply via email to