Struggling to see

[poppyseed]

Hi Stan

I will reply once you are finished so we don't go backwards and forwards with the answers. I hope you are having fun looking:)

Love
Rali

[Stan]

Hello, it's late here, but I wanted to look.

when awareness is named… is that not just another thought?

Yes, indeed.

When the thought says, “this is awareness”… who said that?

No one, or maybe "ego", but ego is not a real thing

What would happen if you didn’t label anything as “awareness” at all?

THat would probably suck me right in.
I have trouble finding awareness today, sadly.

Now — without the label ‘awareness’ — what is left?

Just the experience, it seems. It brings a bit of sweet unburdening.
But awareness does not, should not depend on presence/abscence of experience, no?

yet there is still half-believing their commentary

Right. They are innovative and come pre-packaged with identity/belief.
I am just still not very clear on what is believing vs not believing is. I also don't understand who is believing, and how is this mechanism functioning

Find the one who forgets.

I must have had my share of questions like these. No one can be found this way, but that's logical, considering there is no one. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fellow LU's guide Christiane points out that one needs to look at what the label "self" points to, I think, and look for proof of self there.

But where’s the I in that sensation? Can an “I” be found in sensation itself? What exactly is that I made of in the “middle” of this transparent sensation?

I guess it's just a common thing to say and think... like a tree is labelled "tree", and if you ask me to look for a tree, I will point to it, even though I know that's just a simplification.
...
There is no actual "I" in those. Jut some hyperlinks.
Maybe a dense core. Sorry, I you might have lost me here...

Is there an “I” in the heart?
In the tension?
Anywhere?
Look freshly. What do you find?

I should be able to find I without thinking about it... but I can't
\dorry, I'm dosing off... I wil try to look without thinking about it.

Now we stop pretending there’s someone left to realise it.

I like that (I, obviously, cannot possibly like that, haha).

What’s here now?

Music. THoughts. Typing. Sleepiness. Curiosity. Sensations.
...
Chao)
Tell me what to revisit, if necessary.
Thank you, Rali.

[Stan]

I forgot to include my notes from practice during work break
///
I can't find any such thingy as awareness... which is really weird. I feel gaslighted. Did they not tell me to find awareness? Did I not find it before? But I always knew that awareness is not a thing, even though they like talking about Big Self/You are awreness/etc.
I guess this leaves me just with sensations. But there is a flavor, or a perfume, to them...

Is it simply assumed?

Well... while it is not found in senses, location or time, there is something...aliveness?
Assumption, label, comes after experiencing this.
Like with that tree analogy... Tree is a label for something real, even though it is, really, unknowable. All the while we try to see that "I" points to nothing real. By this logic, awareness is something real, but the trick is not to personalize it...
I might be wrong, but that's what I came up with.

[poppyseed]

Hi Stan
Excellent looking! You’re not regurgitating — you’re digging. Good. You’re circling around key shifts, so let’s cut through a few patterns that are still holding up the game.

It is an experience, which ‘I’ can access whenever ‘I’ want.

Pause right there. Look very closely:
Who is this “I” that accesses? You put it in apostrophes but the question remains. What/who (entity, agent) is doing the accessing/wanting?
Or is there just what is (already happening), and then a thought claiming it?

I’m not very clear on what is believing vs not believing… who is believing, and how is this mechanism functioning?

I wish I would be just non-askingly sucked into this.

In DE is there an awareness separate from thoughts and the senses, that can witness and be sucked or not? Who’s outside that needs to be sucked in?
Where is “out” and where is “in”(into)? There’s just this.
Try this:
Right now, a thought arises: “I don’t understand belief.”
Where does that thought land?
Is there a believer inside it?
Or is it just sound — a wave — instantly gone?
Belief is just thought that isn’t seen as thought yet. Once it’s seen as just thought — it’s not believed. It’s empty.
You don’t need to “stop believing.” You just need to see that the believer never existed.

Well... that's what some of them say, right? It's not something, but it's not nothing either.

Forget what “they” say. Trust only what is really here.
Can you find awareness? Yes or no?
Not the word. Not the idea. Actually look. Can you locate it? Is it some kind of a visible container? Are there ”solid” thoughts floating around in “awareness”- “arising, appearing and disappearing”? At that moment, when a thought appears, is there nothing else but thought and awareness? No sound, no colours (even “blackness” with eyes closed), no heartbeat? Do you see how thought goes to each one of them and try to artificially isolate them into the background of awareness? In DE can you find an entity that is everything rather than everything is everything, and I/awareness is just a label?
What “physical” qualities make this into “awareness” that you can observe directly?
Can you really see where awareness ends and sensation begins?
And just to make it clear
“seems like”, “feels like” = thought content
Nothing in DE is “seems like”. It’s either here, clear as a day, or not. So if it is “seems like” then it is just an old/conditioned/learned way of describing what is happening. Here we are checking all these “seems like’s” and replacing them with clear seeing.
You were right — no border.
Awareness isn’t behind the experience, watching. It’s not a field. It’s not a thing. It’s not even “yours”.
It’s the simple fact that experience is happening. That’s all.
No observer. No inside. No outside. Just this.
In Buddhism the term “suchness” or “thusness” (whatever is happening) is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word – pointing to whatever is directly experienced like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling/conceptualising the experience.

Just for the sake of what “they say” here is something different:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

Awareness does not, should not depend on presence/absence of experience, no?

Thought requires awareness.

Does it? Or is that just a thought about awareness?
Let’s check. Right now:
A thought appears — let’s say, “I’m sitting here.”
Does awareness appear first? Or does thought just… appear?
Is there any gap? Any field? Any precondition?
Who says what awareness should be?
Can “awareness” exist independent of experience — or is that just an idea that sounds spiritual?
“Awareness” is just a word. A concept. A poetic abstraction. It only appears after experience is already happening. And once it’s named — it becomes a thing. A refuge. A trick. A backup “self.”
But the truth is much drier, much simpler:
There is no awareness. There is just this. No container. No observer. No knower.
So now, right now… Don’t “be aware.” Don’t try to enter some special state.
Just don’t name anything. Let experience happen — completely unowned, uninterpreted.
Now look again… Where is awareness? Can you find it?
Or is there only… this →?

There seems to be two modes: being lost in thought vs seeing thoughts clearly…

Good. That’s the edge. It’s like the Mahamudra koan:
Is there a difference between abiding in tranquillity and moving in thought?
And like with any other koan, it cannot be solved by conventional logic, reason, or intellectual analysis. It is designed to push you beyond the limits of the thinking mind, into DE of reality.
So look … what claims ownership of each mode? Who is the one “lost”?
Who is the one “seeing clearly”?
Or are these just thought-labels riding on top of the same raw experiencing?

I am also not very clear on attention vs awareness, and is there anyone focusing or modulating attention. I heard different opinions...

Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Do you move it, or it moves by itself?
Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control? Where is the “you” in the looking?
What is “focus” in DE? Is it something like a torch lighting up things in the dark waiting to be illuminated?
Is there focusing + object (senses), or just the senses, just this/ whatever IS, including the thought?
I guess what I’m pointing to is – is there a difference between focus and labelling??
There is what IS happening and the conditioned description of it (aka thought). But where exactly is the look-er/focus?
Is there anything more than sensation + thought that says “I’m doing this”?

Well... while it is not found in senses, location or time, there is something...aliveness?

I run into senses. But also a quietness, maybe...

Quietness is not a thing — it’s just the absence of thought chatter.
What we usually call “awareness” — with its supposed stillness, openness, aliveness, quietness — is actually just the raw, unlabelled sensing already happening. No awareness “behind” it. No quietness in it. Just this.
The idea of “awareness has quietness” is a leftover structure — still separating experience into subject and object. But the direct experience is much simpler:
The so-called quietness/aliveness is the sound of a distant car. The breeze on skin. The flickering of a shadow. The gentle heartbeat. A moment with no thought.
Not a quality of a background field. Not a state. Just… this. And nothing owns it.

I can’t find any such thingy as awareness... which is really weird.

Good. You’ve seen that neither “I” nor “awareness” are findable. They’re both just thought-labels pasted over raw experience.

There is no actual "I" in those. Jut some hyperlinks.
Maybe a dense core. Sorry, I you might have lost me here...

Let’s expose it directly.
That dense core — that “middle” of sensation — is the last place the “I” tries to live.
But when you say “dense core”… that’s already interpretation. Strip it.
Is there any actual ‘I’ in the sensation — or just a raw feeling, and a thought saying ‘this is me’?
If you don’t name it… does the core remain?

Tree is a label for something real, even though it is, really, unknowable. All the while we try to see that "I" points to nothing real. By this logic, awareness is something real, but the trick is not to personalize it...

I say that real is that which does not disappear when you stop believing in it. Let’s take three “things” - a tree, a country, and Superman. The first points to a “material” thing – you can touch it, smell it, taste it :), see it; the second is a label that is used for communication but cannot be found as a thing; the third is an imaginary character, a word that points to something that isn't real. A fictional character. So look is "awareness" real?

Love
Rali

[Stan]

Who is this “I” that accesses?

Well, damn... No one there to access or not to access, to want or not to want. There is, actually, quite a strong image of self there. I guess I must have grown accustomed to considering myself a seeker.

Or is there just what is (already happening), and then a thought claiming it?

Yes, this is correct.
There is, seemingly, a moment when "waking up" happens. But I suppose that could be another thought intevening, saying immediately that something has changed, that a mode has been switched.

In DE is there an awareness separate from thoughts and the senses, that can witness and be sucked or not? Who’s outside that needs to be sucked in?
Where is “out” and where is “in”(into)? There’s just this.

Weird... I feel scrambled in my brain, but I think I might have considered DE as an observer. I am hearing a sound.... directly. VS I am experiencing a description of that sound. This should have been pointed out! While in truth, DE is just DE.
So no, no one to be sucked in. No movement is required.
What a stubborn belief, what a strong lifeline.
///
Gosh, that's a workbook. I will allot more time tomorrow. Don't anwer this one.

[Stan]

Who’s outside that needs to be sucked in?
Where is “out” and where is “in”(into)?

There is no outside... everything is already in. Thoughts and beliefs about "not being in" are already a part of this. "You need to stop believing thoughts" is in. "When will I wake up, ffs?" is in. Etc. I suppose it shouldn't even be possible to "be out". Right? Crazy stuff.

Is there a believer inside it?

No believer... and you are right, thought has no power, when seen. Well, I wish I had a better insight into this "seeing" then... that's still a mystery. An elusive one too.

Can you find awareness? Yes or no?

I have changed it into "Can awareness be found?"
Awareness cannot be found as something... foundable.
I'm not sure what's going on.
How do I know there are no thoughts? There is some knowing capability that does not depend on thoughts. I am sure you are well-versed on all the analogies and pointers...

Is it some kind of a visible container?

You know, I always struggled with finding awareness. It's one the most painful things for me at this point. How can one not find the most obsious (supposedly) thing? I feel cursed.

Are there ”solid” thoughts floating around in “awareness”- “arising, appearing and disappearing”?

I am not sure... they seem to exist like said sentences do, like audio. I have no idea where they appear.

At that moment, when a thought appears, is there nothing else but thought and awareness? No sound, no colours (even “blackness” with eyes closed), no heartbeat?

Thoughts obscure every other experience. I usually function on an autopilot. All those things exist, of course, but there is no awareness of them/they are not noticed/no attention is paid to them.

Do you see how thought goes to each one of them and try to artificially isolate them into the background of awareness?

Sorry, could you rephrase this? I don't get the context.

In DE can you find an entity that is everything rather than everything is everything, and I/awareness is just a label?

There is no separate entity.
it's like there is some sense, some knowingness, that does not depend on experience. BUt what if I have just imagined it over the time? This sucks.
Sorry,,,I am feeling stupid and completely sieged by thoughts from these questions.

Trust only what is really here

I have problems with this. HOw do I know what's really here? On the moment, evrythings seems to be real/not real, even stories :(

///
God, this is going to take hours... I can spend dozen of minutes on almost every sentence.
I appreaciate your skill and effort, thank you, Rali. I like this. No awareness, huh...
Best,
Stan

[poppyseed]

Hey Stan
You are doing great! Keep going! I know it was a really long post but the way you are facing it seems to be working great. These are all pointers to the same thing from a different angle, so it make sense to have them at once. Spend time with each question and write a report of it (here). I will reply when you exhaust all of them. They all seem to be chipping pieces of that major belief.
You are exactly where you need to be. Question all what you know is true.
Rest in DE. That's all

Love
Rali

[Stan]

Ain't you a peach!
If you fancy, I would be interested in you sharing thoughts on why is everyone pointing to awareness? I am not talking about those who talk being aware of awareness. I am talking about those who point to awareness.
Hell, you guys here at lu have article by dear Angelo "inquiry for first awakening" that points to that which knows thoughts but does not need thoughts to shine on.

[poppyseed]

Hey Stan
Haha — you’re sharp and asking the right question at the right time.
Let’s go straight into it:
Awareness is often used as a stepping stone in this work.
Not because it’s “ultimate,” but because it’s cleaner than the personal self. When people are identified with “me” as body, history, personality — it’s like being lost in dense fog. So we point to something quieter, more stable: awareness.
“What notices the thoughts?”
“What’s here before the next thought?”
And for many, this pointer helps shift attention out of the storm of mind into a kind of spacious noticing.
But — and this is the critical part — if that noticing is turned into a thing, or a location, or a self-substitute...
Then awareness becomes a trap. A subtler ego. A sacred-sounding prison.
So yes — awareness is useful as a tool.
A lens cleaner. A doorway. But it is not the destination.
Once the illusion of separation is seen through, even awareness doesn’t survive.
There’s just this — raw, selfless, label-less.
And that is what no one owns, no one witnesses, and no one wakes up to.

Even Angelo — yes, him too — points to that which knows thought but doesn’t arise with thought.
That’s fine… as a doorway. But here’s the problem:
Once that doorway is entered — the sign “awareness” needs to be burned.
If not, you end up with a seeker quietly clinging to the role of the knower.
So:
“That which knows thought…” — is that a thing?
Can it be separated from the thought?
Or is “knowing” just a word we use to describe experience… after it’s already happened?
Look! Are there knowing and known, or knowingknown/just this?
Keep going. You don’t need more knowledge. You don’t need better concepts. You just need to stop looking for something to land in.

You’re ready for these questions — or you wouldn’t be seeing through the answers already.
Love
Rali

[Stan]

I see... thank you. For real.
Angelo is on it. He had a video called The awareness trap, where he explores the same thing. But I always thought that's too advanced, that's "deeper realization" and that I need to achieve the first awakening. I mean, that's how the teachings often go. I always wanted that mythical release...
Can I just skip it? Or am I just stuck at the level before entering the doorway?
or maybe my authenticity is off the charts and my brain is twice the size (at least).

“That which knows thought…” — is that a thing?

Thoughts are simply known directly. In the gap there is just silence.

Can it be separated from the thought?

No. Knowing of experience and experiencing are basically synonymous.
Can I find anything separate from experience which knows it?
No such intermediary or external power is necessary.

Or is “knowing” just a word we use to describe experience… after it’s already happened?

Wtf... what is "knowing" then even? A memory?
I think "knowing" might not be necessary for the experience to be... be XD

Look! Are there knowing and known, or knowingknown/just this?

Sorry, you got a typo...
I cannot separate knowing from known. I think it is somehow confused with the process of creating a thought of an experience, of reflecting it. This is what we commonly call "knowledge", after all... a database of thoughts.

I've also watched that youtube vid. Good one... caused a bit of that good old fear even!

Till tomorrow

[poppyseed]

Hey Stan

Angelo is on it. He had a video called The awareness trap, where he explores the same thing. But I always thought that's too advanced, that's "deeper realization" and that I need to achieve the first awakening. I mean, that's how the teachings often go. I always wanted that mythical release...
Can I just skip it? Or am I just stuck at the level before entering the doorway?
or maybe my authenticity is off the charts and my brain is twice the size (at least).

Yes, Stan — you absolutely can skip it.
There’s nothing to achieve. No doorway to enter. No special first awakening that gives you permission to see what’s already undeniably here. That mythical release? That was just a fantasy sold by the mind to keep itself going.
And here you are — exposing the whole architecture of seeking, thought, “knowing,” and even the idea of awareness itself.
That’s not a beginning stage. That’s the death spiral of identity.

I will reply once you are done with all the previous questions...
Love
Rali

[Stan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lm3G0_ ... ex=17&t=8s

Funny, but I have also thought that awareness must be a verb and definitely not a noun.
///
[mine] Thought requires awareness.

Does it? Or is that just a thought about awareness?

Just an empty idea.
///
Let’s check. Right now:
A thought appears — let’s say, “I’m sitting here.”

Does awareness appear first? Or does thought just… appear?

Awareness does not go anywhere. But yes, thought just appears, whether in/from awareness or not - I don't know, that would be ideation.

Is there any gap? Any field? Any precondition?

It's hard to say. I might be imagining stuff. I've been looking for something for so long, spurred by Angelo and some other.
...
Seriously, it is much easier and more satisfying to see that there is nothing but more experience, instead of looking for a thing that is not thing.

Who says what awareness should be?

I dunno, people just try to point there however they can, and I've picked up a bunch of ideas around that.

Can “awareness” exist independent of experience — or is that just an idea that sounds spiritual?

I don't know. I can't check it - there is always experience, and I can't find awareness in the first place. It's just something I've picked up from Sam Gow and Angelo... sorry.

“Awareness” is just a word.

Man... you know, this word just pressupposes separation, no?? Because it is always awareness "of" something. After a point, it belongs in the trashbin.

Just don’t name anything. Let experience happen — completely unowned, uninterpreted.

Well, I won't hide my confusion from you. Who is there to name or not name? Who is to let or not to let? Own or not own, interpret or not? Who are you even talking to? What are you doing? Where am I mistaken?
Names just come. Guides here teach that there is no control over thoughts. So confusing...
I tried not naming, but I need details. We will surely return to this...

Now look again… Where is awareness? Can you find it?
Or is there only… this →?

Just this.
///
While I remember... the whole next section you can put into a "deal with this later" basket.
the next barricade might be "the advice is that there is just experience, so rest in it. And don't you dare mix it up with non-experience!". What is non-experience? Where does thought (part of DE) end and thought content (NOT DE) start? This is not explained satisfactorily.
And why is self/character exluded anyway? Is it not empty of self anyway?
And that basic LU's ruleset of what is DE and what is not... who put those rules? They seemed somewhat weak in their foundation when I read them... can't remember why.
Oh, and what should be the relationship to thought?
///
I hope to deal with the rest of your workbook tomorrow. Yay!

[poppyseed]

Hi Stan
This is all gold. Raw, unfiltered, honest. You're not confused — you're simply standing in the ruins of every idea that ever felt stable. That means it's working.

Awareness is just a word
This word just presupposes separation, no? Because it is always awareness of something.

Yes! The very structure of the word sneaks duality back in through the side door. All of it splits what’s actually undivided. Which is why the final insight is so dry, so unsatisfying, and so complete… There’s no awareness. No experiencer. No container. No gap. Just this. Nothing held. Nothing observed. Nothing known. To call it “awareness” / “love” / “peace” / “the great spaghetti monster” / whatever…
…is to assign qualities that are just assumed. Decorations. Poetic stickers. It turns raw, unowned experiencing into a thing — a presence, a field, a truth. But these are just words layered on top of what never needed naming. The moment it’s called anything — it becomes something. And the seeker survives. So drop even that.
What’s here before any label sticks?
Not awareness. Not love. Not silence. Not you.
Just this.
Now:

Who are you even talking to? What are you doing? Where am I mistaken?

Exactly. There is no me or you here. There’s just commentary talking to commentary.
Thought echoing off thought.
What makes it feel like “mine” or “yours”? Only the interpretation — and that is always happening on "your" side ("the eyes", "the ears", and the meaning). Even “Rali’s reply” is a label arising there. So who’s receiving it? Where’s the boundary that marks "mine" vs "yours"? LOOK!

The idea that “I” am sending and “you” are receiving is just one more story in a stream of impersonal appearing. Let it play. But don’t believe it. There’s no one on either end.
Is there a believer, a lsitener? Or that is just thought content self-organising – new ideas/descriptions mixing up with old ones? When I say "don't believe" I am not talking to you - there is just thought self-organising.
Just thoughts, sensations, images, labels — untied to any owner.
What’s here when that’s seen directly?
Is there still a “you” needing to understand this?
Or is there just this, now talking to itself?

And that basic LU's ruleset of what is DE and what is not... who put those rules?

Good. Really look. Who did? Or was it just thought drawing another line between “this” and “not this”?
The “rules” were never meant to be final — they’re just training wheels. Crude, deliberate constraints to break the habit of living inside commentary. At some point, even those collapse. The only real DE is what’s happening before you call it “direct experience.” Before you check if it qualifies. Before you name it at all.
Can you find any experience that is not direct?
Where is the middleman? Where is the one who receives it?
There’s no DE vs. not-DE. That’s another duality — another game. There’s only this.
Now. Without rules. Without anyone watching it happen. Let the whole framework fall.
Then report what’s left — without filtering it through someone else’s definition.

Looking forward to the rest of your reports…
Love
Rali

[Stan]

Rali, hello. I am somewhat resistant to dig more. It's a bit too much, too confusing and too much doubt and too many inquiries to do, all the while I am just as stupid and in-selfed (tha'ts a word I have just coined) as always. I will skip today.

[poppyseed]

Hey Stan
Totally fine. This isn’t homework. You’re not behind. You’re not failing. You’re not stuck. You’re not stupid.
You’re raw. That’s all.
And that resistance? That fog? That feeling of “too much”?
That’s the residue of the seeker coming into view — loud, tired, trying to survive.
Don’t fight it. Let it be here. Skip today. Skip a week if you need. But don’t pretend this is a step back.
Sometimes the most honest thing is to say: “Enough. Let the dust settle.”
You’ve already burned through more illusion than most will dare to touch.
So rest. Not as someone resting. Just rest.
I’m not going anywhere. This thread will wait.

Totally okay to pause, Stan. No pressure here. But if you're willing — even just a little — I’d be curious:
Which questions or areas bring up the strongest resistance?
Not to dive into them. Not to “work on” them. Just to name what feels like too much right now.
Sometimes just seeing what resists is enough to loosen it.
No need to reply in depth — just a line or two if it helps keep the thread open.
Or ignore this and take full space.
All fine.

Love
Rali