Ok, so first off, as I’ve been sitting with your comment of “this is it” in regards to my description above, something has started to shift. It kind of feels like it’s halfway between an intellectual and direct understanding now. On the one hand, I see those periods of “flow” as states- something that comes and goes. And those periods can only be referred to after the fact, through thought. So there’s the questioning that how can the seeing of the no self be something that I’d have to refer back to? That doesn’t make sense. But on the other hand, through all our exploration of thought, I know that thought is actually a part of that “flow” as well- that I think “I’m out of the flow” once I’m referring to it, but in actuality thoughts are just IT too... the “I” in thoughts is just IT too. The thing is that I know this but I can’t seem to totally experientially see it yet. I know it has to percolate a bit more.V: This is it.K: There were many periods today of just sensory experience- but I can only ever acknowledge those periods after the fact because during them there is no one separate to “know”, there just is what’s happening.
This is it.
This is seeing that there is no self to know anything.
So what else do you expect?
Do you expect that you can stay in this experience where no self appears to know anything?
I wouldn’t expect to stay in the thoughtless experiencing because then how could this ever be known? It appears that it still has to be known through an aspect of thought even though thought is part of it too. That a knowing can somehow happen that there’s no one separate to know all this.
I think I want to sit more with this before I write down my assumptions (although my last comment might be an assumption?), because things are shifting and I don’t want to take the chance of going back into the conceptual “figure it out” mode right now. I’m going to continue looking at thoughts for a bit and the aspect of “WHO is there to KNOW this”...