The Gate

Hi dev, apologies I hadn't seen your reply. Will reply tomorrow.
Tao

One question before bed,

Is existence/experience ever subjective?
If so WHAT/WHERE is the subject?

Or is subjectivity an idea about an experiencER ?

Whoa!
You mean: whatever is not an object of consciousness does not exist i.e. it exist only in thought?
I speak to you, and then I turn away and speak to someone else -- that moment you ceased to exist?
Well, OK, you did, for me -- in my DE.

There is no 'my' DE. Where is the 'me' that experiences experience?

'Me', 'you' and 'someone else' are all just ideas about experience. Are there ever real existing people? Or is there just light/colour/sound/sensation?

For something to cease to exist, it would have to be there in the first place.

You still do exist for yourself and for someone else who might tlk with you at that time but you don't exist for my point of awareness anymore. Your existence -- when you are not with me -- is just an assumption, a thought?

This is all thought story. Is there a point of awareness? Are there several awarenesses? Can you find another awareness, or just awareness?

'People' is an idea that shows up in awareness, so how can people be the source of awareness?
Does awareness have a source? Can u find it, or do you just find ideas that show up in awareness?

America is just my idea? It have no existance?
Not for me, here -- sure.

America is just an idea yes. It is not your idea, no-one 'has' the idea, it just shows up.
Can you find America in DE?

Awareness is never more or less aware. And there is nothing that awareness is unaware of.
So if it is aware of a just one thing instead of a thousand things, awareness is not less...?

Multiplicity is an idea that shows up in awareness.
Can you find a thousand things in DE?
Can you find two things in DE?
Or do you just find ideas about two things?
Is experience ever divided? Or is experience always 'whole'?

Even the thought that creates an illusion of an 'unknown' is still fully known.
Could you/we elaborate on that?

Thought says something is unknown. 'Unknown' is an idea. You are aware of that thought fully. There is no part of the thought that is unknown, and the 'unknown' that thought speaks of is imagined.

You always know experience in its fullest.

What is it that needs to be free from focused awareness? What is it that needs openness?
How the hell did I came to the idea of "being lost in thoughts" as being less valuable than "being present"?

Do we talk about it's really irrelevant weather we are mesmerized by thought or we see through it?

Its a common belief. What would see through thought?

Is awareness ever limited in any way?
I guess I'm hung up on idea of being "more aware".
But I see: the ocean is not less with less waves.
Being aware of one thing exclusivelly is no better than being aware of whole room... for awareness.

Just now a certain smell evoked a memory of childhood and I wandered away from writting this.
No problem for awareness.

Am I unconscious if my awareness is in my thoughts rather than present when I drive a car?
(good recipe for quick dis-identification with anything other than awareness)

You're not more aware when you are 'present'
You are not unconscious if attention is in thoughts
You are fully aware of whatever is showing up.

So where is the subject in all of this?

Tao

Hi Tao,

I will take one more day to go into your questions. I don't want to "just do them".

Thnx,

Dev

Hi Tao,

Here are some of the answers.I added some thought-stream in italic.

T: Is existence/experience ever subjective? If so, WHAT/WHERE is the subject? Or is subjectivity an idea about an experiencER? 

A default answer would be 'yes'. But in DE the subject cannot be found. Assumption is that the subject is what's doing the looking. But then again, this assumption is just an idea arising, so it is objective. Therefore subjectivity is an idea about experiencer. 
We are just constantly and consistently repeating the subjectivity myth by using language so it became a habit. 

There is no 'my' DE. Where is the 'me' that experiences experience? 'Me', 'you' and 'someone else' are all just ideas about experience. Are there ever real existing people? Or is there just light/colour/sound/sensation? 

The same as above. Even 'people' are just an idea imposed on a sensation(s). Or certain sensations are encoded as "people", "table", "spider", "cat" etc. 

The whole process seems to be about the depersonalization of awareness/being. 

T: This is all thought story. Is there a point of awareness? 

A point of awareness was my term for apertures from which awareness is seemingly looking and seeing specific things; a viewpoint. How we could call that? 

T: Are there several awarenesses?

 
I can conceive one and the same awareness peopling, thinging and eventing around. 

T: Can you find another awareness, or just awareness? 

As above, only conceptually. In DE "it" would be nothing, no thing. 

T: 'People' is an idea that shows up in awareness, so how can people be the source of awareness? Does awareness have a source? Can u find it, or do you just find ideas that show up in awareness?

Those questions are about disregarding or bypassing the whole human interpretational software. 

I could agree with the above in DE (and DE I mostly "do" in a kind of a meditative way, sitting comfortably with eyes closed), daily experience seems to contradict it, as during operative day-time I feel centered or contracted to a certain point in space, and awareness I perceive as if flowing through apertures from that point. 
Kind of both worlds are being experienced. 

The rest of the questions from your previous post I will answer tomorrow i hope.

Thank you for your patience and your work,

Dev

A sequel to my previous post:

T: Can you find America in DE?

No. This one is easy as it is abstract. I can't even find "my country". It is just another name labeled on experience.

T: Multiplicity is an idea that shows up in awareness. Can you find a thousand things in DE? Can you find two things in DE? Or do you just find ideas about two things? Is experience ever divided? Or is experience always 'whole'?

Hummm... We could cut everything down to there being only a thought about everything. Everything we talk about are just ideas, thoughts. 
Whatever comes up in DE comes as light/colour/sound/smell/taste/sensation, with a thought labeling it as some thing, individual or generic. Thousand things or two things -- a man or a crowd, a "thing" or "a collection of things"... to see "a tree" or to see "a forest" -- both are just interpretations or labels attached on what's perceived (light/colour/sound/smell/taste/sensation). 

D: Do we talk about it's really irrelevant weather we are mesmerized by thought or we see through it?
T: Its a common belief. What would see through thought? 

Awareness...?
I guess I learned some fancy ideas about "pure awareness" i.e. awareness not immersed in thoughts. But those are all just ideas too. 

T: You're not more aware when you are 'present'. You are not unconscious if attention is in thoughts. You are fully aware of whatever is showing up. 

That's also a revelation. True! Awareness is not less when "lost in thought" or "being present".

A thought-stream:
It seems that there is a lot of fuss about mind being "a barrier to recognition of one's true nature". This "issue" somehow keeps the focus "out there, on mind" while the thing (or, technically, no-thing) called awareness/consciousness/being/whatever-the-name that is declared as something "we search for" is much more intimate and immensly simpler than that whole jazz happening on the periphery.

T: So where is the subject in all of this? 

Mmmmm... How could we name different viewpoints on situation (like: "you see the table from different angle than me")? Again, I get that in DE "different viewpoints" are just a thought story... together with a subject...

Thank you,

Dev

Hi Dev sorry for late reply

T: Is existence/experience ever subjective? If so, WHAT/WHERE is the subject? Or is subjectivity an idea about an experiencER? 
A default answer would be 'yes'. But in DE the subject cannot be found. Assumption is that the subject is what's doing the looking. But then again, this assumption is just an idea arising, so it is objective. Therefore subjectivity is an idea about experiencer. 
We are just constantly and consistently repeating the subjectivity myth by using language so it became a habit. 

Yes, so is it clear there is no subject of experience?
Experience without an experiencer.

There is no 'my' DE. Where is the 'me' that experiences experience? 'Me', 'you' and 'someone else' are all just ideas about experience. Are there ever real existing people? Or is there just light/colour/sound/sensation? 
The same as above. Even 'people' are just an idea imposed on a sensation(s). Or certain sensations are encoded as "people", "table", "spider", "cat" etc. 

The whole process seems to be about the depersonalization of awareness/being. 

Yes great.

T: This is all thought story. Is there a point of awareness? 
A point of awareness was my term for apertures from which awareness is seemingly looking and seeing specific things; a viewpoint. How we could call that? 

An idea? Awareness is SEEMINGLY looking.
What is it that makes it seem that way?

T: Are there several awarenesses?
I can conceive one and the same awareness peopling, thinging and eventing around. 

Good. Have you any 'evidence' of there being another awareness, other than THIS awareness?

T: 'People' is an idea that shows up in awareness, so how can people be the source of awareness? Does awareness have a source? Can u find it, or do you just find ideas that show up in awareness?
Those questions are about disregarding or bypassing the whole human interpretational software. 

I could agree with the above in DE (and DE I mostly "do" in a kind of a meditative way, sitting comfortably with eyes closed), daily experience seems to contradict it, as during operative day-time I feel centered or contracted to a certain point in space, and awareness I perceive as if flowing through apertures from that point. 
Kind of both worlds are being experienced. 
Dev

Is 'daily experience' anything more than a thought appearing now?
A thought says 'I experience a point of awareness'
Yet in DE no point can be found.

If thought is being referred to, it will seems as if worlds are being experienced
Yet in DE, it is seen that that is a thought,
Can be no more than a thought

T: Can you find America in DE?
No. This one is easy as it is abstract. I can't even find "my country". It is just another name labeled on experience.

Good.
Can you find a world?
A self?
A brain?
A universe?

T: Multiplicity is an idea that shows up in awareness. Can you find a thousand things in DE? Can you find two things in DE? Or do you just find ideas about two things? Is experience ever divided? Or is experience always 'whole'?
Hummm... We could cut everything down to there being only a thought about everything. Everything we talk about are just ideas, thoughts. 
Whatever comes up in DE comes as light/colour/sound/smell/taste/sensation, with a thought labeling it as some thing, individual or generic. Thousand things or two things -- a man or a crowd, a "thing" or "a collection of things"... to see "a tree" or to see "a forest" -- both are just interpretations or labels attached on what's perceived (light/colour/sound/smell/taste/sensation). 

Yes exactly

D: Do we talk about it's really irrelevant weather we are mesmerized by thought or we see through it?
T: Its a common belief. What would see through thought? 
Awareness...?
I guess I learned some fancy ideas about "pure awareness" i.e. awareness not immersed in thoughts. But those are all just ideas too. 

You could say 'pure awareness' is simply DE.
When attention turns upon itself, and knows itself to be.

Yet even though thought appears, there is nothing that fails to know/be itself.

'Pure awareness' is not a state
It already is.

T: You're not more aware when you are 'present'. You are not unconscious if attention is in thoughts. You are fully aware of whatever is showing up. 
That's also a revelation. True! Awareness is not less when "lost in thought" or "being present".

Good glad this is seen.

A thought-stream:
It seems that there is a lot of fuss about mind being "a barrier to recognition of one's true nature". This "issue" somehow keeps the focus "out there, on mind" while the thing (or, technically, no-thing) called awareness/consciousness/being/whatever-the-name that is declared as something "we search for" is much more intimate and immensly simpler than that whole jazz happening on the periphery.

Yes

T: So where is the subject in all of this? 
Mmmmm... How could we name different viewpoints on situation (like: "you see the table from different angle than me")? Again, I get that in DE "different viewpoints" are just a thought story... together with a subject...

You and me are not separate entities
It is just THIS
Appearing as a thought about two things

Tao

Hi Tao,

T: Yes, so is it clear there is no subject of experience? Experience without an experiencer.

Conceptually -- yes. In DE -- yes. Although the phantom is still alive, sometimes opaque, sometimes transparent.
I guess in similar stage Byron Katie invented The Work to help herself disperse the seeming concreteness of concepts...
Where the memory would be recorded? If anywhere?

D: A point of awareness was my term for apertures from which awareness is seemingly looking and seeing specific things; a viewpoint. How we could call that? 
T: An idea? Awareness is SEEMINGLY looking. What is it that makes it seem that way?

I'll have to see that clearly in DE.

Related thought-stream:
Do we come to a point where all sensations light/colour/sound/smell/taste/touch could be considered as thoughts too? As... interpretations of ... I don't know what ... by the mind? As imaginations? (including "the mind", as the name for thought-flow).
"Perception is imagination", I remembered I read long time ago in Nisargadatta's books -- now this comes up revived.

T: Are there several awarenesses?
D: I can conceive one and the same awareness peopling, thinging and eventing around. 
T: Have you any 'evidence' of there being another awareness, other than THIS awareness?

Hummm. Three persons are watching the same event and they come to me and tell me slightly different description of what happened. So we have four versions of the event.
We can cut through this if we say the persons itself are just a thoughts in awareness...
It somehow... feels strange...
I ask. You answer. Is there a difference? What are you to me? What am I to you? Concepts?
Messed up.

Tao, I'll have to come back to this tomorrow; I'm too dull now and sleepy, sorry. Will continue this and answer the rest.

Thnx,

Dev

Hi Tao,

A sequel:

T: Awareness is SEEMINGLY looking. What is it that makes it seem that way?

I need some assistance with that last sentence.

T: Is 'daily experience' anything more than a thought appearing now?

No, "daily experience" is a thought, ... as well as "America" and "my country".
Everything we could talk about here are thoughts and concepts anyway.

As per

A thought says 'I experience a point of awareness'
Yet in DE no point can be found.
If thought is being referred to, it will seems as if worlds are being experienced
Yet in DE, it is seen that that is a thought,
Can be no more than a thought.

and also

Could anything be perceived without a thought label pasted on it?

Without a concept -- a thought -- no start or end points of any experience could be found. In that sense, no experience could be singled out from the totality without a thought. "Nothing is happening" does not neccesary means all is peaceful or "there is nothing out there", it could mean as well "nothing is being picked up" from totality. Or "the sections, the divisions (proclaimed by thought, which frame "something") are seen to be fictive".
That applies to a 'I experience a point of awareness', too.

Can you find a world (in DE)? A self? A brain? A universe?

Only experiencing, seemingly framed by thoughts into sequencional experiences -- this, this and this (whatever the labels) -- instead of continual experiencing... which we could call being or "resting in experiencing".

Flashback (a story):
Once I got a kind of satori. It happened in a rush-hour crowded tram, watching persons close to me looking out of the windows. Tram was moving. Their eyes would single out, pick up an object and then follow it for as long as it would be within the field of vision, and when it was gone (in a one or in two seconds; very quickly), their eyes would blaze forward to pick another object to follow, and it repeated all over again all the time. I was just amazed.
Although I didn't know why, back then.

Nowdays, I'd say there were two modes of perception: one that's singling out things and the other that would let the things just pass by, without focusing on them. I don't know if "detached" would be a good word...?
Singling out means focusing on thinking/thinging.
The other one sounds like DE.

You could say 'pure awareness' is simply DE. When attention turns upon itself, and knows itself to be.

Between us, I must say that this "attention turning upon itself" is quite a lousy way to said it. I know that from my past experience in yoga where the same phrase was heard too often and it became quite frustrating.
It's like practicing to see the back of your head. If you turn quickly enough...
It should be repeated all over again that it is a description and not a prescription, as it cannot be done. It sounds like a doable thing, but it's really a carrot on the stick. One could spin at this point for years.

I'd say: when attention RESTS, irrelevant to thoughts/perceptions going on. Registering everything, but not being involved.
And it is not about knowing at all, knowing anything the way we usually know things. It's rather unknowing... and staying in/as unknowing.

Yet even though thought appears, there is nothing that fails to know/be itself.

Not sure I got that. Could you rephrase this, please (if you consider it important)?

'Pure awareness' is not a state. It already is.

This I get. A state can arise. It is kind of a background or a medium in (I use "in" again) which all arises. In that sense "it" is prior to arising of any and every "thing" or "think" (thought).

What still escapes me is that sometimes it was said here "a medium AS which all arises.
Is thought separate from awareness?

You and me are not separate entities. It is just THIS, appearing as a thought about two things.

"One and the same awareness peopling, thinging and eventing around?", like I said in a previous post?

Thank you for your work,

Dev

Conceptually -- yes. In DE -- yes. Although the phantom is still alive, sometimes opaque, sometimes transparent.
I guess in similar stage Byron Katie invented The Work to help herself disperse the seeming concreteness of concepts...

Yes although it is worth noting here that this is considered 'post-gate' work.
And DE is all that is needed.
But nothing needs this to happen

What is it that needs/wants the phantom gone? The phantom itself?
Does that phantom have any reality?

D: A point of awareness was my term for apertures from which awareness is seemingly looking and seeing specific things; a viewpoint. How we could call that? 
T: An idea? Awareness is SEEMINGLY looking. What is it that makes it seem that way?
I'll have to see that clearly in DE.

Awareness is not actually looking, it only seems that way.
An aperture is imagined, is it not?
When you look, the aperture is not there, and 'never was'

Do we come to a point where all sensations light/colour/sound/smell/taste/touch could be considered as thoughts too? As... interpretations of ... I don't know what ... by the mind? As imaginations? (including "the mind", as the name for thought-flow).
"Perception is imagination", I remembered I read long time ago in Nisargadatta's books -- now this comes up revived.

Can you taste the word 'honey'?
Could you describe the experience 'blue' to someone who has been blind from birth? Would your description give them the actual experience of blue?

Direct experience is not a thought.
Thought just labels/categorises/conceptualises experience

Hummm. Three persons are watching the same event and they come to me and tell me slightly different description of what happened. So we have four versions of the event.
We can cut through this if we say the persons itself are just a thoughts in awareness...
It somehow... feels strange...
I ask. You answer. Is there a difference? What are you to me? What am I to you? Concepts?
Messed up.

'Three persons' and 'event' are thought stories, appearing in THIS awareness.
Are there actually 3 people watching an event?
Has there ever been 3 people?
Has there ever been an event?

T: Is 'daily experience' anything more than a thought appearing now?
No, "daily experience" is a thought, ... as well as "America" and "my country".
Everything we could talk about here are thoughts and concepts anyway.

Yes, except direct experience. 'It is' regardless of whether thoughts are there or not.
We can only use descriptions to point to DE.

Without a concept -- a thought -- no start or end points of any experience could be found. In that sense, no experience could be singled out from the totality without a thought. "Nothing is happening" does not neccesary means all is peaceful or "there is nothing out there", it could mean as well "nothing is being picked up" from totality. Or "the sections, the divisions (proclaimed by thought, which frame "something") are seen to be fictive".
That applies to a 'I experience a point of awareness', too.

Indeed

Can you find a world (in DE)? A self? A brain? A universe?
Only experiencing, seemingly framed by thoughts into sequencional experiences -- this, this and this (whatever the labels) -- instead of continual experiencing... which we could call being or "resting in experiencing".

Yes good

Flashback (a story):
Once I got a kind of satori. It happened in a rush-hour crowded tram, watching persons close to me looking out of the windows. Tram was moving. Their eyes would single out, pick up an object and then follow it for as long as it would be within the field of vision, and when it was gone (in a one or in two seconds; very quickly), their eyes would blaze forward to pick another object to follow, and it repeated all over again all the time. I was just amazed.
Although I didn't know why, back then.

This is an appearance in awareness
A dream that something is 'looking'

Nowdays, I'd say there were two modes of perception: one that's singling out things and the other that would let the things just pass by, without focusing on them. I don't know if "detached" would be a good word...?
Singling out means focusing on thinking/thinging.
The other one sounds like DE.

What exactly is it that would single things out
What has the ability to let things pass by?
Do you have any choice or control over what appears to be?

Between us, I must say that this "attention turning upon itself" is quite a lousy way to said it. I know that from my past experience in yoga where the same phrase was heard too often and it became quite frustrating.
It's like practicing to see the back of your head. If you turn quickly enough...
It should be repeated all over again that it is a description and not a prescription, as it cannot be done. It sounds like a doable thing, but it's really a carrot on the stick. One could spin at this point for years.

A lousy description, yes. But not a carrot on a stick

Ask yourself the question, 'am I aware?'
In between the question being asked, and the first thought that appears, what do you find?

I'd say: when attention RESTS, irrelevant to thoughts/perceptions going on. Registering everything, but not being involved.
And it is not about knowing at all, knowing anything the way we usually know things. It's rather unknowing... and staying in/as unknowing.

Is anything ever 'involved'?

Yet even though thought appears, there is nothing that fails to know/be itself.
Not sure I got that. Could you rephrase this, please (if you consider it important)?

Yes, thought does not diminish or hide awareness in anyway
Awareness 'always' is
Regardless of thought

'Pure awareness' is not a state. It already is.
This I get. A state can arise. It is kind of a background or a medium in (I use "in" again) which all arises. In that sense "it" is prior to arising of any and every "thing" or "think" (thought).

Yes

You and me are not separate entities. It is just THIS, appearing as a thought about two things.

"One and the same awareness peopling, thinging and eventing around?", like I said in a previous post?

Or to be more specific,
One and the same awareness appearing to people and thing around

Tao

Hi Tao,
Was trying to write something but I'm dead tired.
Will skip this day and write tomorrow.
Sorry for delay,
Dev

Hi Tao,

D: Although the phantom is still alive, sometimes opaque, sometimes transparent. 
T: What is it that needs/wants the phantom gone? The phantom itself? Does that phantom have any reality?

Hummm.... Yes, it seems to be the phantom itself. 
"Out there" seems to be only ideas. The whole existence seems to be just an idea. "In here" seems to be also an idea, projected backwards ("attention turning to itself"). Projected onto... nothing, it seems...
Can't find anything. Before, this have been received as horrorfull realization... Not so much these days. 

T: Can you taste the word 'honey'? Could you describe the experience 'blue' to someone who has been blind from birth? Would your description give them the actual experience of blue? 

No. The description may convey the label but not the actual experience. 
But whenever an experience would become known, it will be received together with a label already sticked on it -- if not a description than (the second time it is perceived) at least a reference to a memory . 
In DE we actually learn to see this two-folded nature of all the inputs -- sensorial plus conceptual.
And more and more it seems to me that they are inseparable.

D: Three persons are watching the same event ...
T: 'Three persons' and 'event' are thought stories, appearing in THIS awareness. Are there actually 3 people watching an event? Has there ever been 3 people? Has there ever been an event?

In "can you taste the word 'honey'", the taste could be considered an event. The raw sensations in DE could be considered an event. 
On the other hand -- and as I said in last post -- an event is known only when it is conceptually cut off from totality and pointed out or presented as "something" due  connotation and values projected on it that differs it from its background... And there's always a "someone" for whome it is done. 
Beside that, the totality of life cannot really be called an event. 
Like that watching from the window of the moving tram: if there is no picking up on something now-and-now-and-now, i.e. in continual gazing everything passes by and nothing gets singled out as a point, as an experience. Nothing is noticed. No event. 
To put it in different way: when there is no interest, three persons does not register, neither does the event. 

D: Everything we could talk about here are thoughts and concepts anyway.
T: Yes, except direct experience. 'It is' regardless of whether thoughts are there or not. We can only use descriptions to point to DE.

Sometimes all this sounds like a double-talk -- you and me speaking about there not being you and me...

@: watching persons looking out of the windows. 
T: This is an appearance in awareness. A dream that something is 'looking'. 

> OK.

D: Two modes of perception: one that's singling out things and the other that would let the things just pass by. 
T: What exactly is it that would single things out? What has the ability to let things pass by? Do you have any choice or control over what appears to be?

Hummm. It seems to being "drawn in" or "letting them pass by" happen. 
I wonder how it is noticed at all. 
But go back to your saying above: "We can only use descriptions to point to DE." 
Who should do it? Do we have any choice or control over what appears to be? Puzzling. 

@ "attention turning upon itself" 
T: A lousy description, yes. But not a carrot on a stick. Ask yourself the question, 'am I aware?' In between the question being asked, and the first thought that appears, what do you find?

> Nothing. 

@ attention, registering everything, but not being involved. 
T: Is anything ever 'involved'?

That's a big one. Will return to this. This should be checked again.

T: Thought does not diminish or hide awareness in anyway. Awareness 'always' is, regardless of thought. 

So regardless of the state of "being mesmerized by thoughts" or of "being detached" (that is more valued in "spiritual world") -- awareness is the same, and all those different values that have been put on this two states are just irrelevant... or are considered to be relevant only "out there", on surface or periphery of being, in "dream world"?  
I heard "more and more people are waking up". You want to say that -- as per awareness itself -- it is totally irrelevant weather its mode is -- or it is -- attached or detached? Be it wavy or not, ocean is no less nor more? Why then so big talk about "the quality of being detached"?

Thank you for your time and help,

Dev

Hi Dev

Hummm.... Yes, it seems to be the phantom itself.
"Out there" seems to be only ideas. The whole existence seems to be just an idea. "In here" seems to be also an idea, projected backwards ("attention turning to itself"). Projected onto... nothing, it seems...
Can't find anything. Before, this have been received as horrorfull realization... Not so much these days.

Good.

No. The description may convey the label but not the actual experience.
But whenever an experience would become known, it will be received together with a label already sticked on it -- if not a description than (the second time it is perceived) at least a reference to a memory .
In DE we actually learn to see this two-folded nature of all the inputs -- sensorial plus conceptual.
And more and more it seems to me that they are inseparable.

So what causes an experience to 'become known'?
Is the 'becoming known' the concept itself, implying an 'event'?
Without 'becoming known', there is experiencing.
Does anything 'know' experiencing?
Or is experiencing simply the knowing of itself?

In "can you taste the word 'honey'", the taste could be considered an event. The raw sensations in DE could be considered an event.
On the other hand -- and as I said in last post -- an event is known only when it is conceptually cut off from totality and pointed out or presented as "something" due connotation and values projected on it that differs it from its background... And there's always a "someone" for whome it is done.
Beside that, the totality of life cannot really be called an event.
Like that watching from the window of the moving tram: if there is no picking up on something now-and-now-and-now, i.e. in continual gazing everything passes by and nothing gets singled out as a point, as an experience. Nothing is noticed. No event.
To put it in different way: when there is no interest, three persons does not register, neither does the event.

Yes good. 'Event' is only ever a concept, implying that there is something separate from totality. That some'thing' always comes with the self assumption. .I.e an experiencer, and also a 'time' assumption.

For there to be a something, there has to be something else to experience that something.
This is the misperception of thought. Because thought cannot grasp that this is all appearing as totality 'itself'
Without these conceptual divisions, there is only seemless totality.
In fact, it is not even seemless, as 'it' is already whole and timeless.

Even with these conceptual divisions,
There is still only totality.

Sometimes all this sounds like a double-talk -- you and me speaking about there not being you and me...

What is it that says there is a you and me speaking?
A thought?
These are words appearing in/as experiencing itself.
Do they have an author?

ummm. It seems to being "drawn in" or "letting them pass by" happen.
I wonder how it is noticed at all.
But go back to your saying above: "We can only use descriptions to point to DE."
Who should do it? Do we have any choice or control over what appears to be? Puzzling

That is for you to answer.
Is there an author or creator of these words?
Is there a chooser or controller of these words.
When you appear to be typing, is there any choice over what words appear?
What is it that is choosing?

That's a big one. Will return to this. This should be checked again.

Yes

So regardless of the state of "being mesmerized by thoughts" or of "being detached" (that is more valued in "spiritual world") -- awareness is the same, and all those different values that have been put on this two states are just irrelevant... or are considered to be relevant only "out there", on surface or periphery of being, in "dream world"?
I heard "more and more people are waking up". You want to say that -- as per awareness itself -- it is totally irrelevant weather its mode is -- or it is -- attached or detached? Be it wavy or not, ocean is no less nor more? Why then so big talk about "the quality of being detached"?

You could perhaps call it a stepping stone
It allows room for some assumption of a self to remain
You said yourself, the seeing that used to produce horror, no longer seems so bad.
Fear holds the self in place
Some people it seems are never ready to let that final assumption go
But even that is just an appearance.

There is only ever one 'thing' that can ever wake up to itself.
And it is not a thing, not a person
And when it 'wakes up to itself'
It is seen that it never really was unawake!

Can totality ever become detached from totality?

Tao