4

If this was bone-obvious to everyone else, then silly me, but I just thought of it because I heard these two words separately long ago and connected them while answering another question...

Are "the Observer" and the process of being Mindful, in essence the same thing? Does one involve the other inherently?

I have used them differently and never connected them before, because I thought:

  1. The Observer is a developed system within "me" (which is a collection of points of view of varying levels of awareness) and not everyone has an Observer or is aware of it all the time.
  2. Mindfulness is something I do and is not the activity of another point of view within "me".

But, trying to be mindful when I have only one point of view is not very possible, and who would be mindful, other than the Observer?

Finally: is transcending the Observer (and the need for Mindfulness) the same as Nonduality? I think it is. (Don't worry about answering this question, it is just an idea.)

EDIT: My Healing Teacher said that I have to get people to "define their terms", so here are my definitions:
The Observer is the experience of being aware of myself. It feels like I am witnessing my own thoughts and actions.
Mindfulness is the process of being aware of what I am doing. (To me, this does not require an Observer, but that is what I am asking.)
"Being aware of myself" means... Well, that I know what I am doing right now. Different from the other two.
A Mind - is something that could do otherwise, it exercises choice on some level.
Awareness is the action of a sufficiently developed mind.
Consciousness is awareness of being a self.
A Self is something that knows it is a self, and that other selves know, etc.
(Don't even get me started on the idea of Mindfullness being a way to empty the mind!)

Has this made it any clearer what I am asking? Please try to use words such as these for an answer, supplementing with the appropriate Buddhist terms.

ADDITION: here are some links which I hope can help people understand what I am asking:

  1. This RYUC one is a bit of a muddle, but the Observer corresponds with what I am asking about, and also is similar to what I call a Neo state. The Witness is more like how I would describe nonduality.
  2. This one about Energy Healing says that "In Buddhism, developing the witness/observer is a foundational piece of their teachings." Ha!
  3. In this one, they use the words observer and witness interchangeably.
  • Is this question related? –  Jan 01 '16 at 18:48
  • Beware that Lanka is suggesting that "mindfulness" is a term used rather loosely (I presume that's from the perspective of the Theravada school and according to the vocabulary of the Pali canon). Mindfulness might be the English word used to describe something which is also translated as "bare attention" but there are nuances (other kinds of mindfulness and/or attention). – ChrisW Jan 01 '16 at 18:48
  • @ChrisW Ask a simple question, get a complex answer. sigh –  Jan 01 '16 at 18:59
  • My mum dislikes my using non-English words (for example I lost her interest as soon as I tried to mention dukkha). – ChrisW Jan 01 '16 at 19:08
  • For future reference I guess you mean the word "observer" e.g. as you used it in this answer. – ChrisW Jan 01 '16 at 19:16
  • @ChrisW The best translation I have heard for dukkha is simply "unsatisfactory": no matter what you do, things either don't work out as you wished, or they ultimately fall apart. I am trying to use simple English words here. Cannot there be a simple English answer? As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." –  Jan 01 '16 at 19:18
  • Also if the question is primarily about observer-as-agent versus mindfulness-as-activity, or about mindfulness-as-I, then a related topic might be Why talk and think about self as noun?. – ChrisW Jan 01 '16 at 19:19
  • @ChrisW Indeed. That is the question that I answered which caused me to think of the question I am asking now. If light traveled long enough, would it come around and hit you in the back of the head? –  Jan 01 '16 at 19:20
  • @ChrisW In the self/noun thing, the OP commented: "A relation that relates itself to itself, not the relation itself, but the relation’s relating itself to itself in the relation. That's what I mean by action" Gack! No six year old would get that. –  Jan 01 '16 at 19:22
  • Maybe we can cut through the verb noun issue by saying: the Observer is being aware of yourself, Mindfulness is being aware of what you are doing. They seem different to me, but are they? Or are they intimately connected? –  Jan 01 '16 at 19:33
  • Einstein, eh? It reminds me of this video I saw today where he says that we're trained to expect an answer to every question (e.g. "what is the date today?"); but there's one type of question (i.e. "who are you?") that's especially difficult to answer. In this question, you make some statements using vocabulary and ask whether those statements are true. If Wolfgang Pauli were being rude he might reply to your Einstein that the statement is "Not even wrong". – ChrisW Jan 01 '16 at 19:43
  • 1
    It seems to me that using vocabulary like "being aware of yourself" begs the question (e.g. that there is some well-defined "yourself"). IMO that can't be done unambiguously using conventional (for six-year-olds) words, and instead you might (or then again might not) want to use technical vocabulary with more precise definitions. – ChrisW Jan 01 '16 at 19:48
  • @ChrisW you must have been talking to me while I was making lunch, just now, because I was realizing that... Time for an EDIT to the Question... –  Jan 01 '16 at 19:52
  • You already gave defintions for both mindfulness and observer. From then, since it's a model you are conceiving, you are instrumented to tell if you regard them as the same or not (e.g. do you understand processs and experience to be the same? and so on). Unless you are asking the relation of these to Buddhism? –  Jan 02 '16 at 15:49
  • If I do algebraic substitution (i.e. logic) using the first three definitions, then the question resolves to, "is 'the experience of being aware of what I'm doing' the same as 'the process of being aware of what I am doing'?" – ChrisW Jan 02 '16 at 15:53
  • @ThiagoSilva OK, so: do other people (such as Buddhists) have the same model as I do, or am I the only one? I can't be, since I got these words from other people. Either I understood them correctly, or I am in a complete muddle. Please instruct me. –  Jan 02 '16 at 15:53
  • @ChrisW I will accept that as a statement of the question, although I suspect you have either reduced it to nothing, or I have misunderstood the ramifications. I am not a Philosopher, and not so great on Mathematics, either. If the answer does not now leap out at you from your own experience, then I think we have to call it a dead-end inquiry. –  Jan 02 '16 at 15:56
  • In Buddhism, developing the witness/observer is a foundational piece of their teachings. That's a bit hard to fathom. It's true that practice like "watching the breath" is pretty orthodox. – ChrisW Jan 03 '16 at 17:31

8 Answers8

5

The Observer is the experience of being aware of myself. It feels like I am witnessing my own thoughts and actions.

In Buddhism, "myself" as an entity would be a mind-object: a concept, something one conceived / imagined, which receives attention -- a 'self' is taught to not be in the range of actual experiences such as a touch, a smell or primitive mental phenomena (such as a mental image, or mental sound) that can be contacted.

In Buddhism, one is "aware" of the detailed micro experiences (that, among other things, give rise to a concept of self). In buddhism, this "detailed awareness", or "attention" to a specific "primitive experience" is called consciousness (vinanna), which is formulated in buddhism as six-fold: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness1.

Then, it's said that if there's eye organ and visual forms, eye-consciousness arise. The coming of the three is contact. For example in my visual field now there are bed sheets, wall frames and a TV. But while I write this, I'm not conscious of any of these forms, only of this visual character I'm typing right now.

For example, I just realized there was a lamp in the ceiling with lights on in my visual field, even though it has been reachable all the time. Until that moment, there was no contact (my consciousness was not directed) to this particular visual object.

The same occurs with mind as a sense: there are mind objects (e.g. thoughts) a "mind organ", and a mind-consciousness arise; the coming of the three is contact (e.g. when one gives attention to a particular thought). With contact, pleasant, unpleasant (or neither one) occur -- and so on.

Mindfulness is the process of being aware of what I am doing. (To me, this does not require an Observer, but that is what I am asking.)

I think this is close to what mindfulness (sati) is in buddhism. It has different/related meanings depending on context but without going into details, I would summaryze as Thanissaro Bhikku put it: "What does it mean to be mindful of the breath? Something very simple: to keep the breath in mind."

"Being aware of myself" means... Well, that I know what I am doing right now. Different from the other two.

I'm not sure how your "being aware of what I am doing" is different than your "know what I am doing".

A Mind - is something that could do otherwise, it exercises choice on some level.

In buddhism, I think this could be mano, sankhara, or even possibly cetana.

Awareness is the action of a sufficiently developed mind.

I don't quite understand what you mean on this one.

Consciousness is awareness of being a self.

I would not say one is aware of a self (or 'myself', see first point) -- e.g. as if 'self' was an experienced object grasped by any of the 6 sense faculties. But one does elaborate a (by buddhism, incorrect) understanding of being or having 'a self'.

Now, to the question...

Is Mindfulness the same as having an Observer?

In Buddhism (and if you understand mindfulness to be sati), no.

For a detailed investigation on the meanings of mindfulness I suggest Tse-fu Kuan's Mindfulness in Early Buddhism

1: The point, I think, is not to say that there is such a thing as consciousness and it can be perfectly divided in six part (an ontological statement). Rather, it is that understanding the mind in this way is useful / helps with training and understanding of dhamma, and consequently, with final liberation.

  • I agree that the answer to my question is No. I am not sure how you can say that you know you have a self (even knowing it is illusory) yet not be aware of being a self? It seems like "awareness of self" is the only thing that can be said about selfness. Not being aware that it is, renders it, not. I am not sure that you would pass the Turning Test under that criterion. By contrast, "knowing what you are doing" means that you can answer questions about why you did it. Shrdlu could do that. The Observer, in essence, is like a friend who sits there being aware of what you are doing. –  Jan 03 '16 at 16:18
3

As far as I know, Observer (kṣetra-jñaḥ - "the knower of the field [of experience]" or Vedagu - "the one who enjoys [the objects of senses]") is a Hindu concept. It's an ancient expression for the subject of experience, the spectator in the Cartesian Theater:

The king said: ‘Is there, Nāgasena, such a thing as The Knower?’

[Nagasena:] ‘What is this, O king, The Knower (Vedagu)?’

[King Milinda:] ‘The living principle within which sees forms through the eye, hears sounds through the ear, experiences tastes through the tongue, smells odours through the nose, feels touch through the body, and discerns things (conditions, “dhammā") through the mind—just as we, sitting here in the palace, can look out of any window out of which we wish to look, the east window or the west, or the north or the south.
...
Then the Elder [Nagasena] convinced Milinda the king with discourse drawn from the Abhidhamma, saying: ‘It is by reason, O king, of the eye and of forms that sight arises, and those other conditions—contact, sensation, idea, thought, abstraction, sense of vitality, and attention —arise each simultaneously with its predecessor. And a similar succession of cause and effect arises when each of the other five organs of sense is brought into play. And so herein there is no such thing as The Knower (Vedagu).’

Mindfulness in Buddhism is entirely different. It is not a thing, it's a quality you develop. In my opinion and in contrast with modern trends (DBT etc.), mindfulness in Buddhism should not be understood as open-ended awareness. It is mindfulness of something specific you are trying to cultivate, habituate, get used to - in order to change your patterns.

EDIT:

From Buddhist perspective, we misinterpret our experience of awareness to implicate an entity that is aware. "I am aware" we say -- and this recipient of data, the point of view, the source of light, is what ancient Hindu's used to call Vedagu. Buddhists say such "point of view" is merely a perceptual illusion - like a bush that looks like a dog until you look closer. If you look very carefully, they say, you'll clearly see that there is no "you" that is aware. Instead (this is a Yogacara explanation) there is a simple feedback loop. The current dharma (state of mind - citta) serves as an input into the associative perception mechanism (sanjna) which finds matching imprints of previous experiences (samskaras) among those recorded in memory (alaya-vijnana). These imprints become the new state of mind, which serves as an input into the next iteration of the cycle and so on.

If you look at it this way, it is easy to see why we are fooled into thinking there is a subject of experience, "the point of view" that does the watching. As yet another thought takes shape, the gap between it and the next thought seems like there is "I am watching", then from this gap comes the association - this seems like "I think", but all it really is, is the associative perception mechanism (sanjna) that closes the loop by connecting the mind with the memory. "I am this thing that perceives" / "I am the observer" - is the mistake of identification with sanjna.

I guess you could shift the emphasis from the associative mechanism to the repository of past imprints that serves as the source of the next thought - and alternatively say that it is our memory that is The Observer, that it is our memory that "pays attention" to our thoughts/experiences and comes up with associations - which can lead some people to identify with samskara-skandha (the imprints group, basically memory) - another view that Buddha rejected.

The subjective experience, the virtual life-of-I created by our mind that we mistake for reality, is called "vijnana". This is the whole story that includes The Observer, the observed, and everything that happens between them.

What looks to us as self-awareness, with its sense of depth, is merely the recursive nature of the associative loop. It is a similar kind of effect you get when you point a video camera at TV that shows its own output - with a filter in the middle that adds matching elements of past memories. The same basic principle is at work behind Google's DeepDream:

We ask the network: “Whatever you see there, I want more of it!” This creates a feedback loop: if a cloud looks a little bit like a bird, the network will make it look more like a bird. This in turn will make the network recognize the bird even more strongly on the next pass and so forth, until a highly detailed bird appears, seemingly out of nowhere.
...
The results are intriguing—even a relatively simple neural network can be used to over-interpret an image, just like as children we enjoyed watching clouds and interpreting the random shapes.
...
If we apply the algorithm iteratively on its own outputs and apply some zooming after each iteration, we get an endless stream of new impressions, exploring the set of things the network knows about.

Glossary:

Andriy Volkov
  • 58,251
  • 3
  • 54
  • 163
  • No, I was not positing a homunculus at all. my "observer" is the sense that I am aware. It is like feeling your fingertip even though it is not touching anything (which happens if it gets injured, is too hot or cold, among other possibilities). So, the Observer I was asking about is just a point of view in the mind, one among many points of view. It is special in that it is a prompt for self-awareness, or IS perhaps the "feeling" of self-awareness. This is recursive, reflexive. The Observer, in my experience, acts like a tool to help one cultivate Mindfulness. (Back to noun-verb again.) –  Jan 02 '16 at 15:46
  • 1
    You are totally positing a homunculus my friend, and you call it "I am" ;) - I hate to say this but you are very confused as far as Buddhist theory of mind is concerned. Your "point of view in the mind" is a perceptual illusion, like a bush that looks like a dog until you look closer. The recursive/reflexive process you are describing is the associative loop. The feeling of self-awareness, with its sense of depth, is the same effect you have when you point a video camera at TV that shows its own output :) I added more details to my answer above. I hope some of it makes sense to you. – Andriy Volkov Jan 03 '16 at 00:58
  • Thank you for explaining that cycle of consciousness or data flow diagram, i.e. citta -> saṃjñā -> saṃskāra -> ālaya-vijñāna -> citta. It looks plausible! I haven't seen it before. I have (previously) found those Wikipedia articles impenetrable, as if they were (static) entity-relation diagrams, but without any (runtime/dynamic) thread/sequence diagram; so it was hard to see how they 'run' in practice. – ChrisW Jan 03 '16 at 02:13
  • I know it is an illusion, hon. Everything is an illusion. We have no choice but to discuss illusions. I was simply asking about two of them in particular, and how they accord with the illusions of Buddhism. I will peruse the additions to your answer. –  Jan 03 '16 at 15:35
  • It's not enough to say it's illusion and yet to keep talking about them as if they were real. We need to look inside the bush to see for ourselves how there is no dog. – Andriy Volkov Jan 03 '16 at 15:38
  • Especially if one is dyslexic. Or Agnostic. : ) It appears that you are saying that everyone who answered should rather have kept silent. I sometimes agree with the saying: "It is good to say little. Better still to say nothing." But people did respond, and from what I can tell, not one person has actually understood what I mean by the Observer. Since many people do know what I mean, I wish to warn you that this is likely to arise again, and a storm of words is not going to settle the question. It is a difference among people, which merely needs to be understood, not explained away. –  Jan 03 '16 at 15:48
  • No, I don't mind talking, as long as both try to hear each other's point. I think I hear what you're saying - your question is, can what-you-call-mindfulness function without what-you-call-an-observer. And my answer is, yes of course such "mindfulness" does not require such "observer" - because "point of view in the mind" is a fantasy you keep on make-believing with your own thoughts. Also, what you call "mindfulness" is just paying attention, the opposite of absent-mindedness. It's not what Buddha calls mindfulness. What is your goal with these questions, to confirm your views or to learn? – Andriy Volkov Jan 03 '16 at 16:15
  • OK. I wish to stress that the Observer experience that I am talking about is not a thought that one has. It is not chosen, it simply arises, like an itch. It is a particular sort of mental experience that apparently, few people have. It occurs, then goes away. I regret even bringing it up. My goal was to learn, something about Buddhism. I thought that I was using a term that at least a few people would be familiar with. I was wrong. I agreed with you all along that the answer was No, but it occurred to me to ask, because it interested me as a way of understanding people, and so to help. –  Jan 03 '16 at 16:30
  • Like I said, Observer is a standard term in Hindu (Samkhya yoga) that refers to the subject of all experience, the end goal being to discover it to be identical with Ishvara (the absolute). But in Buddhism instead of grasping on things as "this is real" we tend to "explain things away" like you said. So we say there is no Observer. Now, if you are talking specifically about intermittent self-awareness, that is called "manas" - as in "mano-vijnana" (the experience of one's own mind) and "man-indriya" (the "organ" of self-reflection). – Andriy Volkov Jan 03 '16 at 16:54
  • So I guess the answer is: "There is Manas, and there is Mindfulness, and they are different." Which is what I thought. Note the links I added, and see that many many people have this Observer thing happen within them. It is not the same as a posited entity - the Hindu subject of experience. Not the same at all. I have "felt" that the Observer is there, without identifying with it in any way, it feels like not-me, like someone else watching "me". It is a very distinctive thing to have occur. Not a choice. But, it can be developed, whether wisely or not I no longer know. –  Jan 03 '16 at 17:01
  • Yes, I think we are on the same page now. Mindfulness, in the sense of "non-absentmindedness" or "paying attention to what you are doing" does not equate "observing your mind". This being the case, I'm saying this type of mindfulness is useless and not what Buddha taught. Not thinking about anything else while eating, defecating, driving your car - is not the path to enlightenment, otherwise idiots would be Buddhas. Right mindfulness means mindfulness of something useful, something you're trying to cultivate - while going about your day - like mindfulness of body or mind or breath or death etc – Andriy Volkov Jan 03 '16 at 17:27
2

According to Mahayana abhidharma,

Mindfulness is a non-forgetfulness of the mind with respect to a familiar object. It has the function of non-distraction.


It is one the five object-ascertaining mental factors, and it is called 'object-ascertaining' because:

These mental factors hold [an object] through apprehending the individual features of the object. They are said to "individually ascertain objects."

As it is a mind, it is by nature clear and knowing, and it is a basis of designation of the person but is not the person. It is an apprehender, an object-possessor, but it is not a 'observer' because an observer is a person.

A mind, a cognizer such as mindfulness and so forth is possessed by a person (the agent), it has a function (the action) and apprehends its object.

There are various levels of nonduality. In general, a realization that occurs in a non-dualistic manner is free from the appearances of objects and subjects. So it is necessarily free from the apprehension of the object and the subject as being different substances.


In addition, mindfulness is not a process, it is a mind. As such:

  1. It has the nature of being clear
  2. It performs the function of knowing

That it is clear refers to the fact that it has the ability to take the aspect of its object. An eye-consciousness seeing blue takes the [subjective] aspect of blue.

That it is knowing refers to the fact that it apprehends its object. This point is quiet complicated and there is much debate. By nature a mind experiences its object. I hope this answer helps you, as you defined your "Observer" as an experience.

Tenzin Dorje
  • 4,946
  • 1
  • 10
  • 22
  • Thank you, I am chewing on this, as the word references are complex. Perhaps Buddhism does not use 'Observer' in the manner I am familiar with? To me, it is the sense that something watches from within, unmoved by whatever happens. Many people refer to it, such as Wayne Dyer who said, "The Witness inside never ages. It can't." Is this witness / observer just a New Age concept, or is it described in Buddhism also? I call a self without ego a Neo, and it is essentially only a witness, an experiencer with no values, goals, ideals, etc. Nonduality comes after the self / witness dissolves. –  Jan 01 '16 at 19:09
  • @nocomprende My "chewing on those word references" rewords the answer as follows -- 'Mindfulness' is the ability to keep something in mind without distraction. It's one of the 'five mental object-determining mental factors', which are listed here. So "mindfulness" is defined as (or is a translation of) Sati or Smṛti. Mindfulness means a mindfulness of the features of the object in question. – ChrisW Jan 01 '16 at 20:55
  • The mind is not a person (I guess in the same way that the eye, or vision-sense-discrimination, isn't a person). The mind is a 'basis of designation' of the person (which is defined here as meaning, "The parts or attributes upon which something is labeled. In the case of the I, it is the aggregates." ... where 'aggregates' is probably Skandhas). A person (the agent) has a mind, which has a function (its function is to apprehend an object). – ChrisW Jan 01 '16 at 20:56
  • A non-dual realization doesn't have the appearance of "subject and object" so of course it's free of that apprehension (where 'apprehension' is now understood as 'what the mind would do to an appearance'). – ChrisW Jan 01 '16 at 20:57
  • @ChrisW: if non-dual realization does not apprehend, and apprehending is the function of mind, then does non-dual realization occur in a mind? Does the mind go away in that case? But if a person "has a mind", then the person goes away too. Maybe that is what she meant when she said, "there are no 'other people'." That is a lot to be mindful of. Without observing it, of course :-) –  Jan 01 '16 at 21:32
  • Thank you ChrisW for clarifying. @nocomprende Prasangika say that generally, the wisdom directly realizing emptiness realizes it by way of emptiness not appearing to it. In this case, what it realizes is the 'object of engagement'. In this context, if a Prasangika was to say 'there is no other people' he means 'no other people appearing at that time' because nothing appears at the time of direct realization of emptiness (except in the mind of a Buddha) – Tenzin Dorje Jan 01 '16 at 21:49
  • @nocomprende if non-dual realization does not apprehend, and apprehending is the function of mind, then does non-dual realization occur in a mind? Maybe that first "if" is wrong. I think the quote was that, "a non-dual experience doesn't have the appearance of subject-and-object, and is therefore not apprehended as a dual subject-and-object". To consider a concrete example, a violinist and their violin might appear to be non-dual; and (I hope someone will correct me if this is a bad explanation) the mind apprehends (experiences) that non-dual appearance. – ChrisW Jan 01 '16 at 23:04
  • There is no thing 'watching and unmoved by whatever happens', a consciousness is always consciousness of something, in a way 'moved' by that something. – Tenzin Dorje Jan 02 '16 at 09:23
  • @TenzinDorje You wrote, "Mindfulness is a non-forgetfulness ... (and) has the function of non-distraction" and that it's "one the five object-ascertaining mental factors". Can you confirm whether the function of non-distraction is "mindfulness" (Smṛti), or is non-distraction instead "concentration" (Samādhi)? – ChrisW Jan 02 '16 at 12:01
  • 1
    I confirm it is smṛti (Sati), not samadhi. Here is the text I refer to http://www.fpmtabc.org/download/teaching/geshe-chonyi/bp/lorig/handout/Mind%20MentalFactors%20Textbook_KachenYesheGyeltsen.pdf – Tenzin Dorje Jan 02 '16 at 12:15
  • Yes @Uilium, this is when the idea of an Observer dissolves, and the person realizes nonduality. I have seen people on both sides of that awareness. I recall making a joke to someone about the Observer, like what you said. He looked puzzled. –  Jan 02 '16 at 14:43
  • 1
    mindfulness analysis and meaning(s) by Joseph Goldstein: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://insightsd.org/transcripts/&ved=0ahUKEwi0-9HX1IvKAhVE6iYKHQuRDUoQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEvFDsF0F16fOiI5S9VuUB3kNCuzw&sig2=6cUyBxHvZIA8EzKv0Ab1Zw – Lowbrow Jan 02 '16 at 17:43
  • @Uilium: It is right here in the page you linked, whether there is an Observer or not: "on a more subtle level, even when Mindfulness is spontaneous, unprompted and effortless, we can still discern whether there is a presence of an observer. We can notice the presence of a reference point in that Mindfulness, whether there is a sense of someone being mindful or not." This is a little different from what I meant, but it is pertinent. –  Jan 03 '16 at 22:40
  • @nocomprende Are you saying the sense of someone being there is atta? – Lowbrow Jan 03 '16 at 23:34
  • @Uilium: to me, atta is a thought, a concept, an attitude, if you will, something that one consciously identifies with and defends. But the sense of an Observer is more like a feeling, that is not wanted or sought, it just arises. I don't know of anyone who identifies with their Observer, they just notice that it is there, like noticing a blister on your foot. It can be useful, in calling your attention to awareness, which is probably why it develops, like how a blister lets you know that your foot is having a problem. Why can no one recognize what I am talking about? –  Jan 03 '16 at 23:46
  • @Uilium I think that in the reference you linked, the stated distinction of "someone being mindful or not" is like the distinction of saivikalpa samadhi ("with difference") and nirvikalpa samadhi ("without difference"). Awareness without the sense of someone there is what I would call nonduality. –  Jan 03 '16 at 23:49
1

What is realised at the experiential level is the Dhamma for you. What someone else experiences is not the Dhamma for you. In this sense there is no nonduality as people experience reality in different way (as for what I have learned.) There is nothing similar between experiences of disciples, though perhaps experience of among Buddha's may be similar since they experience all what is conditioned. The main goal of experiencing "reality as it is" to develop revulsion to the 5 aggregates. So what you you experience should be to the extent to avoid unwise attention of attention tained by perverted perceptions, thoughts and views. In this context there is always an observer who experiences phenomena though consciousness aided by the faculties, or one that who feels1.

1

“It is to one that feels that I teach Dhamma, not to one that does not feel.” —The Awakened One

Also see: To one that feels by Luangpor Teean Juttasubho

Community
  • 1
Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena
  • 36,981
  • 3
  • 28
  • 82
1

Sati (mindfullness) has the agenda of remembering, keeping in mind, so its quite proper to give it the name "observer" on the level of being an "overseer". Samma sati (right mindfulness) keep the right things in mind. It is often compared with a door-keeper (of the fortress of practice), a good one.

Some short but very usefull essays, to get out of common misunderstandings are:

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

  • I briefly read your reference: "Untangling the present". For me, the Observer is like where it says: "we focus not on what we are, but on what we are doing." The Observer is like a part of the mind that develops to help with awareness. It feels like someone has sat down next to me, saying nothing, just watching what I do, which is that I am being aware. It reinforces awareness by also being aware. It is a help, not a hindrance. –  Apr 17 '17 at 12:22
1

'Mindfulness' ('sati') means to 'remember' rather than to 'observe' ('anupassi').

In the context of basic meditation, 'sati' remembers to observe rather than forgets to observe.

'Mindfulness' & 'observing' are two distinctly separate functions & activities of mind, even though they function together in mediation.

And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. SN 48.10

"What is sammasati? Sati means to bear in mind or bring to mind. Sati is the state of recollecting, the state of remembering, the state of non-fading, the state of non-forgetting. Sati means the sati that is a Spiritual Faculty, the sati that is a Spiritual Power, Sammasati, the Sati that is an Enlightenment Factor, that which is a Path Factor and that which is related to the Path. This is what is called sammasati." [Vbh.105, 286]

The Blessed One said, "Suppose, monks, that a large crowd of people comes thronging together, saying, 'The beauty queen! The beauty queen!' And suppose that the beauty queen is highly accomplished at singing & dancing, so that an even greater crowd comes thronging, saying, 'The beauty queen is singing! The beauty queen is dancing!' Then a man comes along, desiring life & shrinking from death, desiring pleasure & abhorring pain. They say to him, 'Now look here, mister. You must take this bowl filled to the brim with oil and carry it on your head in between the great crowd & the beauty queen. A man with a raised sword will follow right behind you, and wherever you spill even a drop of oil, right there will he cut off your head.' Now what do you think, monks: Will that man, not paying attention to the bowl of oil, let himself get distracted outside?"

"No, lord."

SN 47.20

Dhamma Dhatu
  • 41,600
  • 2
  • 31
  • 80
  • Do you ever have the feeling that you are being watched? Does it ever feel like the point of view of that observer is inside your mind? It is like a déjà vu of being oneself, but it is happening to an awareness-stream that one doesn't have insight in to... It felt so good when it stopped. –  Apr 17 '17 at 11:52
0

I thought that my experience was fairly commonplace, but after reading several answers from people in this community that I have great respect for, and no one seeming to understand at all, even after a year, I admit that I feel perplexed. It would be as if I wrote about having a pebble in my shoe and no one could relate or had ever heard of such a thing.

An Observer is as if there is a whole other self inside my mind, just sitting there watching what happens. If you haven't had it, then there is no way it can be described. It is not like anything else, it is not a function or factor of anything else, it cannot be reduced to anything else or explained in any other terms. It simply is an experience, like feeling sad, or wanting to go outdoors. It just happens to be the experience of part of the mind observing the rest of the mind. It happens. It is not a thought that I am having, because it has itself.

My sense of it is, that as one strives to be more aware, the mind develops an extra awareness track that helps one to do that. It is the persistent feeling that even if I get lost in phenomena, that Observer will not get lost, and so realizing that it is watching me, I tend to act with more awareness. Eventually, one outgrows it or something. I won't even get started on describing how it is to have an Accompanying Voice, which is entirely different, and which I also thought was common, but is apparently known only to me?

0

Yes the observer and the mindfulness are the same in essence they are the ability to import information of your environment,world and self this observation is the key to apply mindfulness to reason and logic why the observer is interacting with self and environment.the observer needs the mindful to reassure the self awareness of ones thoughts and further how these thoughts are influencd and influence the environment.it is a duality of many dualities all becoming the one non dual reasoned logic which further builds character both inner and outer.awareness of the self is further built by mind fullness to know oneself.autism means to know thyself this autismal or automatic duality leading to no dual is the observer and mind as one.

Warrenburns
  • 1