I need a second go at clear seeing please

[Vit1]

What is left when self thoughts are absent, forgotten about or not noticed?

Awareness and knowing.

OK, if self (or me) is only a concept OF self, which would make it no different from a chair thought, can there be anyone in control? Is there any controller of anything, ever, someone who makes thought or experience be as it is?

It would have to be outside experience and prior to experience to make experience happen. So, the question is, is there a separate doer or controller of ANYTHING?

If a self is only thoughts OF a self, is it the same for control or someone who controls?

No, there are arising such as thought and me thought. There is emptiness before it, no controlling entity. There is no controller.

This that is already here as experience, is there anything outside this? Where would outside be? Is there someone who "has" experience or awareness? If no, what is left?

No, just awareness. "small I" is an object in awareness that comes and goes.

You've mentioned two examples where imagination fills in the gaps of "what is here" or "out there", i.e. what's happening, namely, 1) a location and surrounding structure where thoughts are occurring and 2) mental images of what is doing the breathing (correct me if I misrepresent).
But isn't this really just scratching the surface of what is going on in terms of what is being superimposed by imagination? Isn't EVERY word and thought pure abstract representation? Can you name something that is not abstract representation?

Yes, every word and though is an abstract representation. Even the word me is a word-image-map which dissolves and reforms in background awareness.

Thank you David.

[davjak]

What is left when self thoughts are absent, forgotten about or not noticed?
Awareness and knowing.

Is that something known, or is that an answer from thought? Is there awareness of what happens, or is there just what happens and ONLY what seems to happen? If a sound happens, that's it. That's all that seems to be, sound sounding. Nothing else required. To say there is awareness of the sound, that takes an additional layer of conceptualizing, when all there is is the sound, and then another sound, then a sight, a smell, thoughts passing, a sensation, etc.

Is there ever a need for a presence inside the happening to know it or to be 'aware' of it? If there is, well there is the imaginary self, the me, the sense to be inside the experience HAVING the experience. Whatever seems to happen, that is it Vito, including the appearance of a Vito character. Take out the idea of awareness OF it, and that is it, all of it, just THIS, what seems to be. It doesn't need anyone. It is already itself, unknowable, unverifiable, just THIS.

The harboring of unquestioned ideas such as 'awareness', knowing, having experience, witnessing, this is the illusion to be a thing separate from the happening itself. Someone is believed to be there with it, having an experience OF it. For 'awareness' there would ALWAYS have to be someone who IS aware. Harboring these unquestioned assumptions ABOUT what is happening or seeming to happen, is what gives rise to the 'cloud of I-ness' as you called it.

The house is an empty house, Vito. All the houses are empty; no one is home. And still, there is just this, what seems to be happening, as simply itself. It's not close or far, not here or there, now or then, large or small, important or unimportant. Those are all just constructs of the personal point of view. Which, again, is part of the appearance, but never for someone who is aware of it. No beliefs are true, none are needed.

There is emptiness before it, no controlling entity. There is no controller.

Can you say more about this emptiness? Let it all go and tell me about the emptiness that is prior to any idea of a self or controlling entity.

Yes, every word and though is an abstract representation. Even the word me is a word-image-map which dissolves and reforms in background awareness.

If this is the case, the map is not really a map, dissolving and reforming is not really dissolving or reforming, the background is not actually a background and awareness is not really awareness. It was all just thought. It was ALL abstract representation, constructs all the way down.

The question arises, is there anything that can be truly known for what it IS? Is there ANY rock-bottom knowing? Is there ANY fixed, definitive, unchanging structure or basis of KNOWING? What is the fundamental base of everything? Does there have to be a base? Belief and constructs are of no use because it's pure abstraction. What is left?

[Vit1]

Hi David, sorry - just saw you reply here now due to no email reminder, will get to these questions starting tonight.

[Vit1]

Is that something known, or is that an answer from thought? Is there awareness of what happens, or is there just what happens and ONLY what seems to happen? If a sound happens, that's it. That's all that seems to be, sound sounding. Nothing else required. To say there is awareness of the sound, that takes an additional layer of conceptualizing, when all there is is the sound, and then another sound, then a sight, a smell, thoughts passing, a sensation, etc.

In the case of sound, there is only sound now awareness (1) of sound (2). Call it awareness or call it sound, they aren't two. There is no listener. But thoughts call that activity their own i.e. I'm listening.

Is there ever a need for a presence inside the happening to know it or to be 'aware' of it? If there is, well there is the imaginary self, the me, the sense to be inside the experience HAVING the experience. Whatever seems to happen, that is it Vito, including the appearance of a Vito character. Take out the idea of awareness OF it, and that is it, all of it, just THIS, what seems to be. It doesn't need anyone. It is already itself, unknowable, unverifiable, just THIS.

No, using sounds as an example there is only "hearing" or only "sounding", not both. In the case of leg sensations there is no entity, just the act of "sensing" or "awarenessing", to words for the same happening.

Can you say more about this emptiness? Let it all go and tell me about the emptiness that is prior to any idea of a self or controlling entity.

It is now, it is the definition of "prior", it is the doing that moves, that speaks, that thinks.

The question arises, is there anything that can be truly known for what it IS? Is there ANY rock-bottom knowing? Is there ANY fixed, definitive, unchanging structure or basis of KNOWING? What is the fundamental base of everything? Does there have to be a base? Belief and constructs are of no use because it's pure abstraction. What is left?

I'm finding this set of questions very very difficult to process but this is the best I can respond... Not really, especially if the seeming object and seeming subject are the same thing and blend seamlessly into one another. Rock bottom knowing is also the known, one and the same. Words don't make anymore sense at this level, since every word separates one in two.

[davjak]

In the case of sound, there is only sound now awareness (1) of sound (2). Call it awareness or call it sound, they aren't two. There is no listener. But thoughts call that activity their own i.e. I'm listening.

Thoughts claim what seems to be happening? Is that you? Are you doing that? Are you the noticer of it? If thoughts are making claims, what knows the thoughts? You? Where do you fit into this?

It is now, it is the definition of "prior", it is the doing that moves, that speaks, that thinks.

Staying with this question of emptiness, where would you be in relation to this emptiness? Is emptiness a concept or object to ponder? Where would this emptiness be located?

I'm finding this set of questions very very difficult to process but this is the best I can respond... Not really, especially if the seeming object and seeming subject are the same thing and blend seamlessly into one another. Rock bottom knowing is also the known, one and the same. Words don't make anymore sense at this level, since every word separates one in two.

All questions here lead to the same 'place'. That is you. The questions are questioning you, if there is a you. Is there a you? What would you be?