The story about there being a someone/something that is witnessing/awaring thought, colour, sensation, smell, and taste can be found, but can a “witness/awarer” actually be found? Or is “witnessing/awaring” just happening, but not happening to a someone/something?
No witness/awarer can be found in any of the sensations or thought – they are just happening – the seeing, the hearing, the smelling, the sensations, the thoughts. A revelation came during contemplation of this; that what was always thought of as “I” moving attention and awareness around the body to notice sensations in meditation is actually just thought projecting a mental image of the ‘body part’ – not ‘awareness’ or ‘attention’ at all. This is the same mental image of the self that is projected 'out' into the world. Realisation deepening Kay, just slowly here haha.
Can you find anything/anyone that is actually ‘awaring’? For something to be ‘awared’ means that there is a subject - the ‘awarer’ and the object – the ‘awared’.
No – a separate ‘awarer’ cannot be found of objects that are ‘awared,’ because hearing, seeing, smelling, sensation and thought are arising right now and that is all that is known.
Are you aware of a person, objects, and space at all? Or are you only knowing of/as experience?
When AE is focused on, there is only the seeing, the hearing, the thoughts etc – there is no person, objects or space. The illusion of person, objects and space is still being believed in off and on throughout the day, though it has been recognized that no separate entity exists “inside” a body.
For a colour to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ of/as colour! Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ of colour and colour itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?
There is ‘knowing’ of colour labelled ‘black’ (the known) – and there is no dividing line to be found between the two (they are not two – they are one).
Coloursoundthoughtsensationtastesmell = experience itself. Thought seemingly divides experience into these categories…but is colour different to sound? Is colour ‘made of’ something different to sound…or are they ‘made of’ the same ‘substance’ ie experience itself?
All coloursoundthoughtsensationtastesmell arise out of and pass away into emptiness – they are all made out of this ‘emptiness’ whether on the apparent outside or the apparent inside. Apparent ‘colour’ is arising out of the same ‘substance’ as apparent ‘sound’ and being labelled by ‘thought’ which is also arising out of the same ‘substance.’
Thought says many things, but unless it is pointing to AE, then it is simply a story.So in that sense, not everything is story. It looks like it could be until you look a little closer.
Sound labelled "tweettweet" isn't story, it is the AE of sound, but story can say that a blue bird down the street made that sound.
Taste labelled "sweet" isn't a story, it is AE of taste, but story can be, "I love chocolate ice cream."
Colour isn't story, but thought could say, "Wow! What a spectacular sunset!"
Now, if image labelled "spectacular sunset," isn't experience as you presently find it to be, then it IS story.
Can you see the difference?
Everything that is not a direct label by thought of what is being experienced is a story ‘outside’ of direct experience, and a fabrication of thought. “loud engine” is the label for direct experience right now. “I reckon the loud engine I hear revving out there is that hoon with the hotted up V-8 who lives round the corner” is a story.
Have a look at what the AE of ‘confusion’ is.
The label ‘confusion’ is AE of thought and not AE of confusion
The sensation labelled ‘confusion’ is AE of sensation and not AE of confusion
The colour labelled ‘me/I/body’ is AE of colour and not AE of a confusion me.
The arising thoughts about ‘confusion’ ie what it is, why it appeared and who it is happening to are AE of thought and not AE of someone confused.
So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thought…but can anything actually be found that is ‘confused’?
Nope, confusion is just an appearing thought/colour/sensation arising out of emptiness.
Are you not aware of all of the above?
Just slow at fully realizing what it is. Realization is also coming and going with the day – sometimes it is clearer than others.
Are you ever confused when label, sensation and colour, and the story about a ‘me’ who is confused appear? Knowing about something is thought, whereas the knowing AS (the appearance) is direct. You always know exactly 'what is' by being directly aware of what is. You aren't the least bit confused or deluded - it's just *thought* that doesn't know what is going on because thought knows nothing! Confusion is showing up in the show that is never confused about what shows up in it. :)
Yes, I see it is thought that ‘thinks’ it is confused.
There is only black to be found – cannot find an actual witness.
Yes, exactly, if there anything to be found in the blackness that is an actual witness, it would be easily seen, yes?
If there was a witness to be found in the ‘blackness’ “it” would be showing up in some form or other that would be recognized.
Yes, a witness would be easy to find/recognise if there was one.
A dividing line cannot be found between seeing/colour. The thought/image of ‘closed eyes’ is there; sensation is there; colour labelled ‘blackness’ is there/seen.
So seeing and knowing are one and the same. Seeing of colour and seeing of seeing are one and the same = colour
Are seeing and knowing separate or are they one and the same. Is seeing of colour and seeing of seeing different, or are they are one and the same ie colour?
‘Seeing of seeing’ (knowing) cannot be distinguished in AE from ‘seeing’ of colour. Same as if “fingers” touch the “computer” – knowing of the sensation cannot be distinguished from the sensation itself – the sensing IS the knowing of it.
Is there anything that is witnessing colour? Or is seeing and colour synonymous?
They are synonymous when focus is there. When focus is not there, all ‘colour’ becomes labelled objects outside of a ‘self’ again – sensation labelled ‘frustration’ arising (being honest here Kay).
Are you the author of thought? Can you control what labels/thoughts appear or when they appear?
No control here over what labels/images/thoughts appear. Thoughts arise and pass – there is no author of them.
Is there expectation here, that ALL thoughts and labels will eventually fall away and all there will be is silence, and that no seeming objects will be seen…that somehow everything just becomes one big abstract universe or some such? There has NEVER been a separate self – a Leeself, ever, not even one now who is reading this, and yet thoughts/labels have always appeared….so why would that change? All that changes is that you see the stories that labels/thoughts tell for what they really are ie stories.
Not quite. More a desire to know emptiness even while engaged in work/interaction with others, and not the sticking to thought that leads down the rabbit hole of illusion. But it is seen that even ‘desire’ is a projection of thought into the future coupled with sensation – a story, as you say that is not labelling any AE.
If thought appears saying “I am frustrated”. Does the thought “I am frustrated” contain any actual frustration? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains. Let me know how you go.
No, ‘frustrated’ is just a label, no different in content to ‘blahblahblah.’ What is experienced is sensation only plus label plus thought story about ‘frustration.’
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
This is confusing. Thought itself is not making the decision to turn the hand over, yet it appears to “know” what will happen before it happens. Need to explore this further today.
Have you ever found yourself idly scratching an itch without being aware of any thought about scratching it or being aware of any movement to scratch it? Or when driving have you ever gotten ‘lost in thought’ but then noticed that somehow you travelled safely on a busy highway, lost all sense of "I am driving" and somehow still got to your destination perfectly safe?
Definitely all of the above. This type of exploration into ‘how the ship is being steered’ is where the feeling of an “I” is the stickiest. Thought is clearly not the author of movement, as thought can be telling the hand adamantly to move, while the hand stays still. Years of societal conditioning has reiterated free will in every facet of society and suddenly this is being challenged to the core. The central experience is that there is no “I’ yet the feeling is hardest to shake when it comes to how apparent choices are really made (ie; there is no choice whatsoever). AE says that nothing is ‘making’ the hand move, yet there is a strong feeling of an “I’ making a choice. Will continue observing this vigilantly.
The experience is often that there is an illusory 'me', but is it clear that this is always a thought about a 'me'?
Yes, it is clear that this is always a thought/image or assumption about a ‘me.’