"The Warriors Meditation", TEM, and spherical awareness.

 

"The Warriors Meditation", TEM, and spherical awareness - meditation approach from Richard L. Haight.

A few weeks back I had been reviewing a book "The Warrior's Meditation" by Richard L. Haight. I purchased this on audible several years earlier, went through it, and then recently had a bit of spare time and decided to review the meditation and approach again.

I recalled that the approach related to the 5 senses and there was a favouring of open awareness using each of the sense doors, that then led to an open awareness of spacial positioning. That was about all I could remember. I didn't follow it up much after that time.

This time however, I was struck by the number of 'little gems' that the book/work contained.. topics such as alpha/beta wave brain states, attaining alpha states in seconds, the benefits of relaxed open awareness versus always being in a focused state (which is often promoted by many meditation systems), and many other little topics that proved to be highly valuable on the path.

I also enjoyed the comparisons between today's standard living mode versus the living mode that hunter/gatherers and anicent people would have lived in. This involved a much more relaxed focus with the 5 senses and an open awareness of what's happening (for survival), rather than always being zoomed into a very small point of focus, as we find ourselves often today-- with phones, reading content, projects, computers, driving vehicles, etc. -- and which all  have a small, but accumulative tension effect on our quality of living.

The meditation itself (The Warrior's Meditation), does have a lot of carry-over benefits, such as being able to access relaxed open awareness while going about one's daily activities, and also the ease at which it can be integrated into other approaches or just general daily situations.

It's nice to make an exploration of the 5 sense doors in this regard, and the last step of exploring spherical awareness or awareness of one's spatial location is really an interesting experience. Just using the practice of becoming aware of one's peripheral and total visual field, for instance, and noticing when one shifts into an alpha brain state, is worth having as a tool in the toolbox. Likewise, becoming aware of one's body and then the space around one's body, rather than just focusing on parts (as is usually done in vipassana approaches) is well worth the exploration time.

Richard L. Haight has a good number of videos on YouTube, and I feel that he's generally offering something new in the field with this meditation and his open awareness style meditations. I've not read any of his other books, although he's published a few more than just TWM.

Can it lead to liberation on it's own?

I'm not sure exactly. There's a lot of cross over between this open awareness style meditation and other approaches, such as Early Buddhist approaches to context based mindfulness and insight. Also there's obvious links between this and some of the Tibetan practices that use an open awareness style of contemplation such as Dzogchen and Mahamudra. Some teachers doing a similar thing would be Loch Kelly (Effortless Mindfulness), Shinzen Young (with his Do Nothing technique or SHF Global), Dean Sluyter (Dzogchen), and other teachings in the awareness teaching (Advaita) traditions that favour an open global awareness instead of a concentration approach. Note though that these approaches usually use the foundation of either Buddhism, Yoga, Shamanism, or Vedanta as a base. So, I'm a little doubtful that just picking up one technique or secular approach to things is going to lead to awakening without some of the other important framework parts such as having a stable, solid, ethical life in general, and including some sort of concentration practice on side -- which would serve to help understand the exact difference between open awareness and concentrated attention.

Overally, Richard's work is definately worth a look, and worth considering due to it's simple approach, and compilation of many related topics into an easy to understand frame of reference. Richard himself seems like a nice guy, and has a deep background in martial arts, healing, and cultural studies. 

Offical website:

https://richardlhaight.com/

Radical Nonduality- Tony Parsons, Jim Newman etc. 1 The good and the bad.

I've been listening to some talks and videos from Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, and lesser acolytes such as Richard Sylvester etc. lately. For some reason these radical non-duality (Neo-Advaita in some people's lexicon) popped up into my awareness.

Overall, I like the simplicity and directness of their approach. I also like their uncompromising attitude towards the duality of self and the non-duality of things as they really are. Just this. The hopelessness of the "I" projections and all its plans etc, and even its very existence.

However, there's a couple of ugly flaws in this 'non teaching', which probably serve to deepen confusion in some of their 'non-listeners', as is obvious with a few that have been attending for over 10 years with nothing to show. Obviously, the bodies talking at the front of the room are happy for such a comment, since they do confess that they have nothing to give, teach or impart for the hopeless individuals that attend.

The Good

- Direct, uncompromising teaching in contemporary language
- No cultural baggage
- Humour and laughs included, which is genuine and warm.
- No hope for the seeker, individual or self-improvement junkie
- Returns again and again to 'just this' as the end and reality of everything
- Great communication of how it is seen from 'their' end
- Good explanation of nonduality in simple, understandable terms
- Excellent attack on the "I am" and leaves no room for the "I" to escape

The Bad

- Confusing use of some common words such as 'awareness'. Tony seems to only refer to this as pointing to self-awareness that arises with the individual. It seems he doesn't want to acknowledge that there's any awareness outside of the individual's seeming self-awareness (ie the individual being aware of itself versus the world as a duality). This seems ridiculous since it implies that the loss of the self/me entails a loss of awareness, or that awareness doesn't exist apart from the individual's perceived awareness.. so there's no awareness of objects in the room for instance. No awareness full-stop. (?!)

- One sided use of the word 'knowing' and 'know'. To know can mean intellectually know or comprehend concepts, but it can also mean to become aware of, or conscious of as a function. I can know mathematics, but I can also know that there's a screen in front of my face. This knowing or being conscious of isn't the same as amassing conceptual knowledge, it is just a registering in consciousness which requires no effort. However, TP and JN don't acknowledge this use of the word and slap it down at any opportunity. They seem to be equating it only with thinking, conceptualizing. Nothing can be known, registered etc.

- The insistence that the individual can do nothing at all and that nobody can do anything to alleviate their cause. This is 99% true, except for the fact that one's actual, undeniable reality can be investigated, looked at, inquired on. Perhaps that too is a non-event. However, from the point of view of the individual, that still remains a valid action to take; Looking at that which is already here right now. If the pointer or suggestion arises to investigate one's own apparent consciousness or beingness, isn't this worthy of mentioning, instead of the blanket there's no-one here who can do anything, the individual (you) are in a hopeless situation, so don't bother.. this will either happen or not. Of course, the whole "you can do nothing!" tip may be a teaching device or aid to 'giving up', which may or may not be useful for some, especially those hooked on the personal responsibility game. However, this isn't intimated in any way during these meetings, but enforced as a belief that the listener either accepts or rejects (since their own person experience won't tally with this, at least not in the beginning stages). 

- Vague suggestions of 'this' and 'things' being both unreal and real, with no further explanation on what those words actually mean. Yes, this is meant to be a mind-stopper. But, his confuses most of the listeners into a dumb silence. By unreal, it seems they are referring to the conceptual story that is built up in the mind, in which the 'me' takes ownership and personal claim for. It could also refer to completely unreal concepts, such as unicorns flying past. By real, it seems they are referring to just this "spacious aliveness" present. Again, the word 'awareness' is shunned in place of "spacious aliveness" or "empty fullness". OK.

- Idiotic explanations and poo-pooing of time-tested tools such as self-inquiry, contemplative investigation, or pointers such being 'aware of being aware'. Tony points out that 'being aware of being aware' implies a duality or two awarenesses, and so rubbishes this approach for example as ineffectual. But for the life of me, I can't fathom what is so difficult about looking at the fact that one seems to be aware right now. Or that there can be a movement here and now to become aware of the fact that one IS aware and conscious (versus asleep). Besides, in addition to Tony's philosophizing, is there anything more dualistic than a guy sitting in front of an audience talking about how the 'me' is an energy contraction in the body?

- Confusion over the word/concept "I am". I think most people having spent some time within the Nonduality teachings understand the difference between the concept "I am", which equates to a separate entity 'me' that appears temporarily, versus "I am" pointing to the wordless presence in which the concept appears and which appears on waking from sleep- the beingness. For some reason, Tony & friends only acknowledge the conceptual "I am". In one talk he seems to be criticizing: "teachers who teach people to be in the "I am" state - (pointing to his head and laughing) I mean most people are in the 'I am' state anyway.." -- This is false. "Most people" have no idea about the nature of their existence or "I am" state, being totally absorbed in external objects. Most people are NOT in the "I am" state, but identified with the conceptual "I am" and in the mind identified state of being an individual. If they were only in the 'I am' state they would be residing as just the beingness or existence that's happening now, and have no need to attend satsangs etc.


Overall, these talks are great value (and freely given), and worth taking the time to enjoy if one is so inclined, but just be wary of some potholes in the road when travelling along.

"I am- I wish to be.

"I am- I wish to be."

This enigmatic Fourth Way phrase (attributed to Gurdjieff and his groups) can be taken in many different ways- all with different results depending on the focus.

Much has been written by Gurdjieff on what he means by the words 'to be', though usually these words point to 'be-ing' in a way that involves conscious, self-aware, and non-automatic, living. 

One way the above phrase may be used, in order to enable (or rather) promote self-remembering, (ie self-awareness and direct self-knowledge aka nondual awareness and countless other phrases of similar meaning), may be as--

verbally saying and noting -

"I am" - which brings one back to one's self in this moment, including but not limited to sensations, perceptions, identifications, etc. The whole of one's self, especially including one's being-ness which is the background of awareness that includes all of the above external objects. In short, a sense of personal being-ness, am-ness etc.

(pause)

"I wish to be." - which sets one simply in a state of relaxed, open, spacious, aware, be-ingness. It is really an affirmation and self-allowing permission just to relax and be in one's current state, while also being aware in/as the background awareness. It is the state aimed at within other nondual teachings such as Zen (shikantaza), Dzogchen (Rigpa), Advaita Vedanta (Turiya), Jnana Yoga (ParaBrahman), Sufism (Haqq), etc.

"I am- I wish to be."

Try it, you'll like it. You might even return to it again and again, once you get a "taste" for it.

Otherwise, as a more base practice, the phrase can also be used in a somewhat grounding way:

“To prevent reverie, you have to visualize or repeat something, such as ‘I am, I wish to be.’ ” (Richard Rose)

Awareness and objects

For most of our lives, we live totally identified and fixated on objects. But in order to know these objects there needs to be awareness or consciousness present. We have even gone so far as to dream that we are a body and mind, which are themselves objects known in consciousness.

Awakening happens merely when it is known and seen that all we really are is consciousness + objects (one whole, not two parts). We ARE objectless awareness knowing itself as just this consciousness + objects showing up here now. This, knowing itself. Nothing much can be said about just this, knowing itself. Awareness in apparent form and activity.