Yes, I see what you mean, but in the seeing, there is never a seeing of any-thing that is a separate self so there is no seeing in that sense, there’s no finding of anything. It’s never an epiphany, it’s almost more like a loss of interest in looking because there’s never any finding.
If seeing that there is nothing there results in loss of interest or boredom, then it’s not seen. Then it’s not an experiential seeing, but an intellectual knowing. You might THINK that it’s an experiential seeing, but it’s not.
Discovering that the self which has been believed to be ‘myself’ is not there, it has always been imagined only, is a very surprising and for some even a shocking experience.
Imagine discovering that something so fundamental as learning that you were actually born on Mars. Wouldn’t you have a response of surprise, delight, or horror, or even a "wow, that's weird"?
Can you imagine feeling bored or having no interest if you discovered that you were actually born on Mars?
When the self is experientially seen through, it’s not possible to lose interest. Since that is THE biggest discovery about ‘myself’ and is very interesting to see how the illusion of the self-mechanism operates. It’s in utter contradiction in what I’ve believed about ‘myself’ in my whole life. To see this is quite shocking and amusing at the same time.
If you don’t have any surprise and interest when it’s seen that there is nothing at the center, that Kelly is just a fictional character, then it’s not seen. You just THINK you see it. You are operating from the BELIEF that there is nothing there, and when looking is attempted, thoughts just appear “there is nothing there”, “there is nothing to find”. You are operating from the position of “I already know there is thing there” without actually SEEING that there is INDEED nothing there.
This belief of “I already know” is a very ‘dangerous’ one. It's a dead-end.
When I already know something I am closed. I’m closed to actually SEE what is happening, since I ALREADY KNOW.
Seeing through the self comes from the position of not knowing.
It comes from openness. And not from the closed circuit of “I already know”.
But they appear to be the same thing! The looker=doer=Kelly. Even though the looking and the thoughts just happen- without any real volition.
This is the first time that you say that the looker = Kelly.
This is big!
So far our investigation went to the direction of finding some mystical unfindable theoretical looker / observer being outside of experience.
Which is vague and theoretical.
Kelly is something ‘solid’. Something that seems real.
Kelly-character is the one that needs to be investigated.
It’s tough to compare the two because in the life of the character I see to be, I know “I” am not an external witness of all these events happening, like how it is when watching a movie.
Of course not! There is no external witness! The external witness is imagined.
There is no witness whatsoever.
And the me-character, Kelly is NOT OUTSIDE of experience, she appears AS PART OF experience.
So it’s easy to investigate the Kelly-character, since she is constantly dancing as the central, focal point of experience.
She is constantly imagined to be there. All experience is believed to happen to this CENTER.
What you imagine to be an ‘outside witness’ is actually in the CENTER of experience.
It’s in the middle.
Everything revolves around this central character.
So far you’ve wasted your time and energy for searching for a mystical outside witness or looker, while it has been at the CENTER OF EXPERIENCE for the whole time.
Turn the attention inside, to this CENTER.
Kelly is NOT outside, Kelly is like the Sun, everything revolving around her.
I would like to ask you to read this post many times (at least 10) slowly and digesting every word of it.