written 1980 when I was 28
I have made an analytical distinction between states of consciousness and developmental stages. At this time in writing and understanding I have realised this. Suddenly it struck me that the triad: mind or ego, the meditative state and samadhi may have been the same as or at least recalled the threefold in the developmental model: polarity psychology, Yin-Yang Psychology and Oneness. This meant that I had to go back to previous pages and correct inaccurate concepts and phrases (the reader can NOT see this) and add a little here and there.
The state of consciousness denotes the instant or possible in time momentary certain relation between subject (witness) and object. The stage of development denotes the permanent in the psychic development attained state of consciousness. Schematic it looks like this:
|Witness' awareness degree||Witness' state of consciousness||Witness' stage of development|
Following this schematic presentation, the following should apply:
If you are at the polarity stage (and most people are with the exception of the enlightened ones - I do in fact ignore those who are at the Yin-Yang stage), it is possible to 'be led' in the meditative state or samadhi, for the ego can do nothing to achieve this other than to try to create the best possible conditions for the meditative state or samadhi to occur spontaneously. To be in samadhi (or rather, to be samadhi) one must first go through the meditative state. And from the other end of the scale - from the unity of the enlightened person - you can freely choose in which state of consciousness you want to be.
Let us resume:
The basic distinction is the degree of the witness's attention in the present or moment. As we shall see later, our concept of time or time itself is the problem, but for now we assume that it is not a problem.
Then the distinction between three different states of consciousness, where we presume, that the witness in infinite many moments in succession has a certain degree of attention:
The Mind: The "I" or "the ego" is experienced as the "true" subject. No awareness from the witness. The I is experienced as separate from the inner as well as from the outer object. For example: 'I feel fear', not' I am fear' and 'I am separated from the outer physical world.' Experience of time and space.
Meditative state: No perception of 'I', 'ego' or mind. The witness experience the outside world (both the inner, i.e. non-physical as well as the outer, i.e. physical - incl. the body) as non-distinct from itself. It's not possible to think, not even the thought: 'I am now in a meditative state'. The witness is in the now permanent, i.e. in eternity. No perception of time. The witness and the object are in Yin-Yang condition. The witness experiences both being a spectator and 'being led' by one travel (in practice I know it both from the 'inner journey' and from the relaxed meditative state with open eyes.)
The witness is no different from the 'witnessed', because the witness cannot think or discern. Only the I or can think and it does not exist in this condition. To think requires time, in this situation time does not exist, only that eternal now. The witness is a mirror, nothing else. A mirror can only reflect the present.
Therefore, you 'wake up' like after sleeping without any idea of how long you have been in the meditative state. And it does matter if the awareness has been 0% or higher. One is 'out of the mind'.
No perception of space and time. A meditative state with open eyes consists in not to focus the gaze (without trying this), but merely to mirror non-focused. As far as I can remember, this is what Don Juan is trying to teach Castaneda in 'Another Reality'.
Samadhi: Here the witness is left alone. The witness is the witness of the witness, i.e. itself. No perception of space and time. Space is everything and nothing, infinite big and nothing. 100% attention. If you can imagine being a blank mirror, which mirrors another blank mirror, this comes close to the experience.
An apparent contradiction that one could find in the chart is the mind with 0% attention. I have previously mentioned an example of trying to be aware of an outer object and see what happens. My experience with this is that in time, at a speed perhaps faster than light we permanent change of between the mind and the meditative state, and that we only in the meditative state (also although it is only a fraction of a second) sees 'clean', ie. perceive the object.
Any thought, emotion, ie. mind blur for not saying interrupts the perception. In the mind there is no perception. The perception and thus the realization occurs only when a gap occurs in the mind's infinite stream of mental images. But we have the illusion that in time we are permanent attentive and perceptive. That we are not, or that we in some moments are more attentive than in others, one can assure by trying to find out, how much you can remember from the last hour. This gives a picture of, how attentive one has been.
Thus, in the extreme state of 'falling in spells', where the level of attention is 0, nothing can be remembered and you can not remember how long it took, because time was not existing.
When you totally 'lose yourself' in something, you are in a meditative state, if not all the time, but then a relatively long time. Let's say that 50% of the total moments are in the meditative state, ie. 'you are totally engulfed by it' and the remaining 50% are in the mind. After such a while, that is to say relatively long time has been very attentive, totally present without ego, etc., one has an experience perception afterwards: 'Has it really been so long?, it does not feel like that at all.' In the moments when you are totally in the situation, there is no time and no ego.
On the contrary, you experience time as infinitely long when you are in line waiting for something and have nothing else (!) to do or - as you say - 'to kill time.' Here you are forced to be with yourself (your self), and it is not pleasant, because now you become more aware (at least it can be) of all the nonsense going on inside the head (mind).
To end this section, I will first ask the question: 'If we assume, that I and others speak truthfully about all the previously described experiences in moments, in states of consciousness and stages of development, then the the object of the perception or the object of the witness be present even before we become aware of them. But where does the object from or is it real?'
Now there are two possibilities: 1) that we have seen 'visions' either in the interior reality or external reality, ie. that they are illusions or 2) they are real.
If we have seen visions of the inner reality, then where does the object of the witness come from? A scientific theory may not just deny the existence or the possibility because the scientist has not experienced this himself.
If we have seen visions in outer reality, there are two possibilities: 1) either we have projected unconscious images from the inner reality into the outer reality (and this happens very often) or 2) we see non-physical forms of energy (Clairvoyance). If we determine clairvoyance as illusion, then from where does the object of the witness from? If it comes from the inner reality, we can use the argumentation from the first about the scientist. And we can continue that way until we end up debating whether the whole thing is perhaps an illusion or a dream. But i I know this case: it is me who thinks all this, at least must I exist (ultimately the witness) and then we can conclude/argue all the way back to reality again.
They are real
Scientifically, it all comes down to whether you deny the possibility or not. And as I said before, this will be as unscientific as to deny the existence of Australia simply because you have not been there.
This whole work depends 'scientifically' on this. You can believe it or not, the only valid truth criterion is to try for yourself. Then faith and possible doubt will be transformed to true recognition. The paradoxical point is just that I can keep saying, "You have to try even more, you haven't tried enough, so you will never be able to disprove me 'Scientific'". And maybe you find out about it after your physical death, that after 'death' is something else, so I got it right anyway, but now it is no matter and you can't tell me.
Vender vi tilbage, må vi altså slutte, at perceptionrne om større grad og 100% opmærksomhed (samadhi) og de tilsvarende bevidsthedstilstande: meditation osv. er ikke-realiserede potentialer i os.
next page: Who am 'I' - Witness or Ego?