self for sale, one careful previous owner?

[Matthew]

Perhaps I could say, the "I" is simply experienced, not the experiencer?

The "I" is experienced, yes.
Is there a difference between the experience of the thought "I" and the experience of other thoughts?

Is there something else that is doing the experiencing?
What would that be? More than a thought ABOUT "something else that is doing the experiencing"?

Is there actually anything doing the experiencing?

[gondwana]

Is there a difference between the experience of the thought "I" and the experience of other thoughts?

Nope.

Is there something else that is doing the experiencing?
What would that be? More than a thought ABOUT "something else that is doing the experiencing"?

Is there actually anything doing the experiencing?

Well it feels like that is the case.

I have no idea what it is though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matthew]

Can you look closer here, is there an ego or something? Or just more thoughts?

No, it's not an ego.
There is just nothing, a kind of emptiness, but an awareness, a knowing. And open to see the truth.

Is this empty knowing still present?

[Matthew]

I have to ask though, we could say the same about thoughts about "no separate self" right? We could also label that as not real, by saying it's just a thought. How do we know which is the true reality at the end of the day?

That is correct.
"There is a self" and "There is no self" are both concepts at the end of the day and neither of which is utlimately true.
When this is seen, this is "it".
When it is seen that ALL concepts made by thought (including the concept about a "one" who is asking for this) are just a story and ultimately not true, then there will be no one left to have doubt about anything.

"I am enlightened" <-> "I am not enlightened"
"I know the truth" <-> "I cannot see the truth"
Could any of this happen in the absence of thought ABOUT such events?

[gondwana]

Is this empty knowing still present?

It feels like it is noticeably present any time the narrative thoughts quieten down and drop away.

And probably present at all other times.

Or, is this just a thought too?!

"There is a self" and "There is no self" are both concepts at the end of the day and neither of which is utlimately true.
When this is seen, this is "it".

Ok! Yes that makes sense

When it is seen that ALL concepts made by thought (including the concept about a "one" who is asking for this) are just a story and ultimately not true, then there will be no one left to have doubt about anything.

That makes sense. But I'm guessing I need to see that for myself? How?

"I am enlightened" <-> "I am not enlightened"
"I know the truth" <-> "I cannot see the truth"
Could any of this happen in the absence of thought ABOUT such events?

No...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matthew]

Or, is this just a thought too?!

Is the knowing of a thought a thought?

Knowing (awareness) is just a substitute for direct/actual experience.
Here is how:
There is knowing and there is the known. This is how language describes it in everyday life. Clear so far.
But when you look at it. When you look what's really there apart from language:
Is there a dividing line between the knowing and the known?
Is there a separation between the knowing of a thought and the thought?
Is there a boundary between the knowing of the seen and the seen?
Or doesn't knowing and known always happen simultaneously, seamlessly?

It feels like it is noticeably present any time the narrative thoughts quieten down and drop away.

Can thought really obstruct this knowing?
Or isn't an arising thought just as unobstructedly known as a state of "no thought" or a state of "quiet thought"?

[gondwana]

Is the knowing of a thought a thought?

Right yes I think it is.

Is there a separation between the knowing of a thought and the thought?

I can't see one no.

Is there a boundary between the knowing of the seen and the seen?

I'm not able to separate them.

Or doesn't knowing and known always happen simultaneously, seamlessly?

It would appear so.

Can thought really obstruct this knowing?
Or isn't an arising thought just as unobstructedly known as a state of "no thought" or a state of "quiet thought"?

Yes you're right they are all the same.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matthew]

Does pure seeing -without reliance upon thought- tell anything about a "you that is doing the seeing over here" and "there is something over there which is seen right now"?
Is there a separation in pure seeing? Is there a "You" in pure seeing? Is there a "Not You" in pure seeing?

Or is there just ... "ThisWhatIsRightHereRightNow" without any you- or not-you-elements?

[gondwana]

Only the latter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matthew]

Can thought really obstruct this knowing?
Or isn't an arising thought just as unobstructedly known as a state of "no thought" or a state of "quiet thought"?

Yes you're right they are all the same.

Is this clear?
Can the knowing ever be affected by the known?
Is the knowing ever conditioned by anything?
Does the knowing ever change?

[gondwana]

Doesn't the known always affect knowing?

This is the very basis of conditioning.

It is only seeing in direct experience which can become free of conditioning right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matthew]

It is the content, which changes. Sure. But does that affect the knowing of the content? No matter if the content is what is seen, heard, sensed or cognized?
Does the content in any way affect that empty knowingness in which everything appears?

[gondwana]

Does the content in any way affect that empty knowingness in which everything appears?

Ok sorry, struggling with the ambiguity of language for a second there :)

I understand clearly what you're saying now, no, the content doesn't affect that at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matthew]

Good :-)
Stay with me.

Is it Tim, who knows?
Or is Tim also known?

[gondwana]

Tim is known. A thought cannot know anything.

This brought some discomfort. Like Tim didn't really want to be seen, wanted to remain behind the eyes, in the shadows of the skull passively observing, but not being the one seen. I felt this must be from things I dislike about myself, shame etc. Hoping this will not get in the way.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk