Removing the illusion

[Pwkitchen]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
That your guidance will help me realize that the collection of thoughts, impulses, stories, emotions, and concepts of self do not amount to a real “thing” or fixed self. That there is no self separate from experience.

What are you looking for at LU?
Guidance on freeing myself from this confining concept of a separate self who the world “happens to” in a real and lasting sense — off the mat as well as on. I meditate regularly but I feel I still lack a real and lasting insight into the illusory self. I feel moments of profound lightness, of simply being, from time to time, on-mat. I am unsure that I’ve had a real insight about this yet, however. It feels fleeting and I feel that the mere fact that I debate “is this it” must mean that it’s not.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
A direct pointing at the illusion of self as a separate “thing” and the true nature of reality, this moment, being. I need guidance on where I am going wrong or may be bypassing or may simply be sitting in a state of no-thought rather than a genuine experience of being without the illusion of self. I lack structured guidance from someone who has “been there” — my aim is to liberate myself NOW, and I believe guidance can help.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Years of on-and-off meditation: Vippassana/insight, meta, Ānāpānasati, some trekcho, inquiry into self, eg. “Who is this person that mediates - who is the “I” — this particular practice has been somewhat useful for me but again, I have this nagging sense that I’m conceptualizing rather than experiencing. Hopefully that makes sense. I.e., I seem to academically understand that there is no real fixed “I” (as separate) - its just a bundle of “stuff” … I am less confident that I have had genuine insight around this. I am hoping for a direct pointing; not looking to “add to” or escape or experience some altered state.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self? 11

Admin note for Pwkitchen: You can only see answers in your thread when you’re logged in. Please check your thread regularly while logged in, as email notifications don’t always work.

[poppyseed]

Hi Pwkitchen
(what do you want me to call you?)

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed :)! It’s great to see you here!
My name is Rali, and I’ll be glad to be your guide if you like.

Here at LU we assist in the exploration of the idea of the separate self. This is a guiding based on experience that brings a shift in perception and is not a debate. It directly points to what IS through the use of exercises, questions and dialogue. What is expected from you is to LOOK carefully to what is being pointed at. It is this simple LOOKING (not thinking) that brings a shift in perception.

Here, we are LOOKING directly into the experience of the senses, which is actually here and now, with the thinking stripped away. It is also known as Direct Experience (DE) or Actual Experience (AE). In this way, we are aiming to discover what is truly happening without the story we tell ourselves. For this process to work you have to answer with 100% honesty, and not relying on thought, imagination or memory - just reporting your direct experience. That would also mean leaving spiritual teachings, philosophies and science away during the inquiry. If you have a meditation practice, please feel free to continue with it as usual – it might come helpful.

Please read through “Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU. Please confirm that you have read them
http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041

When replying to a question, please use the quote function to highlight the question being answered. Throughout this inquiry, please answer questions individually, not in a bundle. Please watch the below video to learn how to use the Quote function. This will assist us in having a clear dialogue around the questions and answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAToDNh9hQ

It is advisable that you copy and paste questions asked into Word, answer them there and then copy and paste them to your thread. It will save you time in the long run, if a glitch in the system wipes out your answer.

For the sake of the intensity of the inquiry let’s try to stick to a daily conversation. Of course, life happens, so if you need more time, please let me know. I will do as well.

What time zone are you in?
Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

(what do you want me to call you?)

Pat

What is expected from you is to LOOK carefully to what is being pointed at. It is this simple LOOKING (not thinking) that brings a shift in perception.

Understood. Please let me know if you think I give you a "thinking" answer rather than a "looking" answer. I will do my best here.

That would also mean leaving spiritual teachings, philosophies and science away during the inquiry.

This is a relief. I am quite sure that piling on teachings, philosophies, reason, etc. is pushing me further and further from something I suspect is dead-simple. I will continue my regular meditation practice as suggested.

Please read through “Liberation Unleashed is not …”

This area of the site appears to be broken, at least on my browsers (Chrome and Safari). But I think I get the gist, presumably, based on the above blurb about what Liberation unleashed is ... I take that it is not another set of practices, teachings, dogma, spirituality, philosophy, science, etc.

One question: have I used the question and answer format correctly, or do you prefer that one and only one "quote" + "response" is given in each reply? I.e., if you send me a message that has several parts I want to reply to (as above), is this format acceptable or should each be its own separate post?

Thank you, I look forward to inquiring into what is - thank you so very much for your guidance.

Pat

[Pwkitchen]

What time zone are you in?

Sorry, missed this one. I am in central time today. Tomorrow and Sunday I will me in Mountain. Monday and beyond I will be in Pacific. I am moving from Texas to California, but do not wish to put this off until after the move - I will be available to explore this inquiry together on a daily basis. Replies may just come at odd times over the next few days. Thanks for bearing with me!

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat

Good to see you here as well :)

Please let me know if you think I give you a "thinking" answer rather than a "looking" answer. I will do my best here.

I will most certainly do that ;)

This area of the site appears to be broken, at least on my browsers (Chrome and Safari). But I think I get the gist, presumably, based on the above blurb about what Liberation unleashed is ... I take that it is not another set of practices, teachings, dogma, spirituality, philosophy, science, etc.

Yes, you are right. It seems to be inaccessible at the moment. You can try maybe in a few days just to make sure that you are clear about that, but yeah you are on the right track.

I am in central time today. Tomorrow and Sunday I will me in Mountain. Monday and beyond I will be in Pacific.

I'm GMT+2. We have a bit of a difference but we’ll manage

One question: have I used the question and answer format correctly, or do you prefer that one and only one "quote" + "response" is given in each reply? I.e., if you send me a message that has several parts I want to reply to (as above), is this format acceptable or should each be its own separate post?

What you have here is perfect

I will be available to explore this inquiry together on a daily basis. Replies may just come at odd times over the next few days. Thanks for bearing with me!

Great! Thanks for letting me know

First things first, let’s get your expectations out on in the open:

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

3. What do you want not to happen?

4. What are you hoping for?

5. What is missing?

Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

Probably not much? I don't think there is some big fireworks show or levitation or glowing aura or anything like that. Life will still just life. Awareness will still be. Thoughts will still arise and dissolve. Emotions will still come up, be felt in the body, pass on. birds will sing. etc.

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

I guess what would happen would be that I wouldn't take them personally - these things that arise - I wouldn't try to "own" them. I would understand they aren't "my" thoughts. There is no "I" at home. "I" is arising as is everything else. Things just kind of "are". There's no relation to me and so no particular way to feel about any of it except to just enjoy the being of it all.

3. What do you want not to happen?

I don't want another form of seeking. Another "path" ... or another thing to "try" ... I don't want another discipline or more "lessons" I just want someone to smack me on the forehead and say "LOOK, it's this." Sometimes I think I get it (although "I get" seems even problematic - language is difficult around this). There doesn't seem to be much here in the way of an "I". If you asked me "where is the I" i wouldn't be able to say. The best i could do is say it's some sort of tangled bundle of labels and corresponding emotions that sort of get "remembered" and bundled into this knot of sorts - but there isn't anything there really.

4. What are you hoping for?

Maybe answered above but I'll put it here to: I just want someone to smack me on the forehead and say "LOOK, it's this." I just want to see things as they are. Be in it as it is. To simply be. To not be all "hung up"

5. What is missing?

Nothing seems to be missing unless I am missing "it" - that's what I'm trying to find out. Is this it?: there is no separate sense of I - the most we can say "we are" is the act of awareness and in that sense we are and cannot be separate because there is simply nothing there - "I can't BE anything that I can observe/witness/be aware of in the very way that I am aware of it. I can't "be" I because I is a word and it is something I can sense and observe. So all I can land on truly is just Being. I am that I am, so to speak. I don't know. Maybe I'm ";thinking" again

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat

Thank you for your honesty! It can be challenging to become aware of what we really believe. The questions were a means to seeing what expectations you have, as everyone has some “idea” about awakening. There is so much information out there now with so many people sharing their experiences, and “teachers” preaching how it supposed to look and feel, that to have no expectations is almost impossible.

Your expectations are somewhat reasonable, but ultimately, expectations are a hindrance. They cling to an idea of how it is supposed to go, which is not necessarily correct, and this is why I asked you to read the FAQ’s of what Liberation Unleashed is NOT (it seems to be working now http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041). When realisation happens, it can be very subtle and if there are expectations of any kind, then it can be missed and the guiding becomes very difficult. I can promise you that indeed there will be no fireworks or levitation, or glowing aura; it is just a subtle shift in perception! The only true expectation, that you can have, is that the seeking will end (YAY!). If there are any other expectations, it's good to acknowledge them and then set them aside. It is all much simpler and ordinary. Is that OK with you?

Now… If you look for the I, what is there? If I say there’s no doer, thinker, experiencer, decision maker, or a witness, what comes up? Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?

Do it a few times. Again the more you uncover, the better starting point we have. Whatever comes up is "right", it is exactly what needs to be seen right now. As usual, honesty will make this work

Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali,

Thanks for your note and pointers. Yes, part of the problem seems to be all the information one takes in, making it hard to approach this kind of thing without some sort of expectation. But your point is well taken and I can see how having some idea about how it ought to go or what it ought to be or how it ought to feel could be a real hindrance. I will dispel with expectation or image-making as we proceed

Is that OK with you?

Yes, this is great - and I have now reviewed the FAQ (the page is back up for me too).

If you look for the I, what is there?

When I look for the I there is a sort of emptiness there, at first - it is kind of like a ‘blank’ … but then, as soon as I notice the blank sensation it’s as though something comes back - some kind of observer (or feeling of an observer) is still there - as if to say, “there is no haver or doer of these thoughts” but there is this sneaky smuggling back in of the ‘observer’ who is aware of this condition. So it feels like looping back to square one. I academically understand it but it seems I can’t get out from under my own thumb, if that makes sense? What is there at that point is a kind of tightness in my chest, throat, and face.

If I say there’s no doer, thinker, experiencer, decision maker, or a witness, what comes up?

I think I academically understand what you are saying, so an understanding comes up: I can ‘recite’ that there is no doer, no experiencer, no witness - that anger, fear, etc. are self-arising, they are just there -they are just what’s happening. But yet, it seems as if I am just pushing the “I” another layer back … it still seems to be there, lurking underneath all this. For instance, I can label something directly, say, thought, feeling - frustration, bird song, etc. I can understand “I” am not experiencing them that they just kind of are … but there is still this sneaky “I” that is kind of narrating all this. Does this make sense?

Where exactly did you look? What exactly did you find? Please describe in detail what appears – feelings, sensations, thoughts, anything?

Less of a look than a feeling of sorts, inside, around me — starting behind my eyes, in my chest, in my gut, around my head. Exactly what I find is a blank, of sorts. There is nothing to do. But that lasts but an instant before the blank seems to be repopulated with an I that is ‘experiencing’ it.

Feelings: at first a sort of lightness an almost floating or a suspension of sorts. Then a sort of “coming back together” (this happens in a flash) then I kind of narration that “I” experienced such and such and now “I” am thinking about it which has a sort of tightness that accompanies it, almost a nervousness but very low grade.

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat

Thank you for your honest and detailed reply. It gives me an idea of “where you are” (please excuse the pun :) )
Before we start let’s just make sure that you understand how to LOOK for no self in the exercises:
Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here, not inventing or imagining something. If I asked you to tell me what is behind your back right now, you could answer by doing one of two things: by thinking and remembering, or by turning your head around and actually looking back and describing what you see. The second one is how to look.
Looking is finding out what is true in experience.

Thus, there is a BIG difference between knowing that there is nothing and seeing that there is nothing.
Here is an example to illustrate the difference:

If I ask you what colour socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to answer:
1. You can think about it, trying to remember, or guessing what colour they are.
2. You can have a look at your socks and see what colour they ACTUALLY are!
You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

For the purpose of this inquiry, it is crucial that you are clear about this difference in the two ways of answering and stick only to the second way. We are only interested in looking at and seeing what is actually going on. We are only interested in Direct (Actual) Experience (DE/AE)- the experience right now and right here.

Direct or Actual Experience is:

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (sensation, not emotion - emotion is sensation plus thoughts/labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content, what the thought is ABOUT)

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.
Here's an exercise for you to get super clear on what direct experience is. You can use this photo of an apple or a real apple.



Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's colour, a thought saying ‘apple,' and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple." What about the content of thoughts, what they describe? While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT cannot be found in direct or actual experience. Direct, actual experience is sound, thought, colour(sight), smell, taste and sensation.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour (visual information) labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is 'an apple' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali,

Thanks for the fun exercise! And for pointing something out that now seems pretty obvious: most of our ideas about things are just labels that kind of bundle a bunch of direct experiences together. Ie. The conception of an apple is a bundle of experiences regarding color, taste, sound, etc but the “apple” bit is simply a label - a cognitive shortcut of sorts that exists, I assume, to make communication a hell of a lot easier. But nevertheless in and of itself, the label “apple” is empty - there is nothing “apple” going on! Dog, door, tree, plant, etc is no different. They are labels. Ok, I think I see where you’re going here but I’ll wait.

You will agree that only by looking you could be 100% certain, right?

Yes, agreed and in hindsight it would be silly to try to remember or think about what color my socks are when I can just look!

However, is 'an apple' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

No! An apple is not KNOWN … it is thought. There is no direct experience of “apple” only its parts and by that I mean strictly the ways in which it can be directly perceived eg the senses and a “thought” of an apple. Although that last bit is trickier. Though, I guess now that I think about it, it really isn’t tricky. I wanted it to be for some reasons but a thought “about an apple” is just a thought. Any conception of an apple in aggregate is just a label and is not there “on its own” … wild.

So, then, and this is strange, ALL of life is this way, no?? We go around taking labels as the “thing” but they aren’t the thing at all! Hm, it’s difficult to try and think about and moreso to put into words … but maybe I should stop - the bare experience (and to answer your question) is that there is nothing behind us such thing that we call “apple” it’s just “linguistic stuff”!

Whoa …. Sorry … this has properly blown my mind a little bit.

[Pwkitchen]

This really leaves me with an overwhelming sense of “DUH!” - this all seems so, I don’t know, obvious … but something I never really SAW.

[Pwkitchen]

(Sorry for multiple replies here - I feel like I need to keep pulling at this thread, NOW)

So if I just LOOK at the self I see plainly that there is nothing there. Same as “Apple” same for “me/I/self” so what is there, what do I actually see when I look:

Sensations and thoughts — the thoughts are doing a sort of “bundling up” here as they seem to join current sensations to some “story” about “me” that seems completely superfluous. Then that’s where it appears the whole “story of myself” picks up and gets carried away. I’m just “experiencing” out loud here - it occurs to me that it’s all a bunch of blah, blah, blah, so bear with me - don’t want to edit.

There’s a very VERY strong pull of “this is happening to ME” “I’m the one DOING this” but in terms of direct experience, what’s actually here, those are just “thoughts”. There is no doer - things just “do”!

Each time I look directly I see again: there’s just nothing there but sensation and thoughts and then this sort of linguistic mind stuff of trying to assign meaning and history and “lore” etc.

So if you ask me, is there a self/doer/observer, I must say no: although the act of observation, itself, is very evident. There seems no getting away from that (and I don’t see a need for there to be?) - observation does seem to imply an observer though - hmm, maybe this all just semantic bullshit - but there is awareness. I’m sure of that. All “this” is occurring. “I” am here witnessing - but that “I” seems completely conceptual here - I am using it only to speak of my “participation” but it is absolutely not possible to determine where “I” begin or let off — all this just appears to be happening … together …

Awareness here though does not feel like any kind of “me/I” thing, aha! - there is JUST awareness. That’s all I can honestly say: I am becoming aware (in any given moment) of the sites, sounds, sensations around “me” but there is not actual “me” there at all - boy language gets tricky here! But this is my honest direct observation of what’s going on right now when I look directly, without trying to “reason” anything.

Hmm … I’m also having this odd sensation of the fact that I could very easily have “reasoned” my way here, if I chose, but that somehow the insight (which, I mean, is hardly even an “insight” in a classical sense - feels more like, “no shit, I could have just simply LOOKED”) would have been completely missed! You are right, it seems! There is some profound, baseline difference between “knowing” (reasoning) and just seeing it, just looking. Holy shit … an old saying is cropping up that is finally registering as true: “the mountains aren’t mountains, they’re mountains!!!!”

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat
Wonderful looking!!!

Each time I look directly I see again: there’s just nothing there but sensation and thoughts and then this sort of linguistic mind stuff of trying to assign meaning and history and “lore” etc.

How does it feel to see what actually is?!

Just to ensure that you are crystal clear about DE and labels related to it...here's an exercise that you can try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities, objects and emotions simply as colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought as per the apple example.
For example, when having coffee in the morning, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= colour (seeing)
Smelling coffee, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought (thinking)

Break down daily activities into these categories (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and report back with lists EXACTLY like the one above. Please write a few examples from your daily life.

Now let’s apply this in the inquiry… Stay completely literal.

Awareness here though does not feel like any kind of “me/I” thing, aha! - there is JUST awareness. That’s all I can honestly say: I am becoming aware (in any given moment) of the sites, sounds, sensations around “me” but there is not actual “me” there at all - boy language gets tricky here! But this is my honest direct observation of what’s going on right now when I look directly, without trying to “reason” anything.

Can an observer actually be found right now?
Not the thought “there is awareness.” Not the idea of witnessing. Not a conclusion. Look directly.
Is there what’s happening (seeing, hearing, sensation, …, thought) and then separately an entity doing them?
Or does the “observer” only appear as another thought ABOUT experience?
You say:

there is JUST awareness

Fine, but is “awareness” actually experienced as a thing? Or is there simply experiencing? Is awareness any different from an assumption/interpretation (aka thought ABOUT experiencing)?
Look carefully:
Can you find a boundary where “awareness” begins and experience ends?
Can you locate an owner of experience anywhere at all? Is awareness some kind of container?
Don’t use your spiritual lingo, use plain descriptive words of what is actually seen!
Not philosophically. Literally.
And notice this… The instant thought asks “But surely there must be something aware…”, that is already conceptualization again. Stay before the explanation.
What is actually here?

Here is a plain exercise to help you with that:
Close your eyes. With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'. There may be other things you can find going on, sure. If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a redish glow. There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed, I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Pat/awareness/witness/observer, ANYTHING be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer/awareness, be anything other than a concept / idea / thought?
Love
Rali

[Pwkitchen]

Hi Rali!

How does it feel to see what actually is?!

It feels like SUCH a relief! Like something I've been "trying" to drop never needed to be dropped in the first place - was never there to begin with: the thing or the "dropper"! And also, honestly, THRILLING. What an exploration! I will work on the DE exercise you provided and report back tomorrow.

Can an observer actually be found right now?

No, no observer can be found - no actual "thing" is there.

Is there what’s happening (seeing, hearing, sensation, …, thought) and then separately an entity doing them?
Or does the “observer” only appear as another thought ABOUT experience?

No, no separate entity doing anything. Just what's happening, whatever happens just to be. They arise and pass on their own. There is only what's happening.

Fine, but is “awareness” actually experienced as a thing? Or is there simply experiencing? Is awareness any different from an assumption/interpretation (aka thought ABOUT experiencing)?

Yes, this is where my language felt clumsy - awareness is not experienced as a separate, actual thing. There is experiencing - which I think is what I meant by awareness. Experiencing is a better word. Yes, framed in this way "awareness" is a thought - things happen and very often there is some thought "triggered" by this happening. It seems to be some kind of script the brain likes to run. But it's a thought. It's "thinking" about experience. It's just "happening".

Can you find a boundary where “awareness” begins and experience ends?

No, there is no boundary! It is absolutely impossible for me to say "here is where experience begins and ends and here is where I/awareness begin and end. There is just (waves hands around air) all this.

Can you locate an owner of experience anywhere at all? Is awareness some kind of container?

No! No owner, no doer, no witnesser - there is just what is happening. It's apparently all taking care of itself without any need of an "I" to orchestrate or interpret any of it (this recalls a great passage from a Hemmingway novel, but I digress). There is no container of awareness - it appears boundless, it is arising.

What is actually here?

Before the explanation and conceptualization, there is only bare experience - only what is. That's all I can say there is. Anything else would be some conceptualization.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?

Confirmed.

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?

No, there is only seeing blackness. Only hearing my neighbor collect aluminum cans.

3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?

No, it cannot be found. It has to be 'inserted'/created/conceptualized. Which I can actually 'see' happening now. Which is fascinating. To answer your question: no, there is no what/me/Pat who sees/witnesses. me/I/Pat is a conception, a thought, nothing more. Only the experience of seeing is there! And to answer your next question: there is only blackness to be found - this is all direct experience confirms. There is a thought of seeing blackness but again - that is just thinking.

an an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer/awareness, be anything other than a concept / idea / thought?

No it seems firmly IMPOSSIBLE for a see-er (et al) to be a thing that can be directly experienced. No matter how many times I look it's just not there. The thing I've always taken as THE bedrock truth / THE lens just isn't any-"thing" at all! It is simply a conception. There is no way to directly experience the see-er - there is just seeing!!

Pat

P.S. for fun, here is the Hemmingway passage:

"It evidently made no difference whether I was there to look after things or not. I had imagined that the condition of the cars, whether or not things were obtainable, the smooth functioning of the business of removing wounded and sick from the dressing stations, hauling them back from the mountains to the clearing station and then distributing them to the hospitals named on their papers, depended to a considerable extent on myself. Evidently it did not matter whether I was there or not."

[poppyseed]

Hi Pat
Excellent. There is a simplicity and honesty in your looking that is so refreshing.
One thing caught my attention, though. Not because it is wrong, but because it might be worth examining in exactly the same way that you examined "apple" and "self".

There is experiencing.

Have a look at that. When we looked at "apple", it turned out there wasn't actually an apple to be found. There was colour, sensation, smell, taste, and thoughts ABOUT an apple. Likewise, when we looked for a self, observer, witness, or knower, none could actually be found. So now, just out of curiosity:
Is "experiencing" something that can actually be found?
Or is it another label describing what is present?
When "seeing" is labelled seeing, hearing labelled hearing, sensation labelled sensation, are those labels describing something real, or are they already one step removed?
We don’t experience our senses individually. Rather, these are different aspects of this. Thought tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue. In DE, though, it is seen as a one "thing". Senses affect each other. Although speech is perceived through the ears, what we see can change what we hear. In this video, a man produces the same syllable over and over again. If you watch his mouth, you’ll hear the syllable “fah,” but if you look away, you’ll hear “bah.” Although your ears hear “bah,” your eyes see “fah”. This phenomenon is known as the McGurk effect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )
Another example of sensory interaction is how both taste and smell are vital for savouring food (flavour). If smell is lost or impaired, for instance, the taste of food will also be impaired, even if taste receptors on the tongue are working fine.
Here is a fun video that demonstrates how a relationship between sight and touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DphlhmtGRqI
So even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, what is DE showing?
Close your eyes and allow a thought. Continue to pay attention to the thought for a few more seconds. Now with your eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.

Does the sound appear in a different place to the thought? Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thought and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

Don't rush to answer. Just look. I’m pointing to all of this because the mind loves replacing "I am a self" with "There is awareness" and then later "There is experiencing." All three can become conceptual resting places. But notice that even calling it “experiencing” is too much as it supposes separation - experiencing and what is experienced… See if there is anything there besides what is already present before thought says "this is experiencing." The direction of inquiry now isn't toward finding a better description. It's toward seeing whether any description survives inspection.
This doesn’t mean getting rid of labels. No, labels are useful for communication but it’s important to make a clear distinction between labels and DE – see labels' empty nature. When it comes to labels and their usefulness, the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?
I'm not suggesting there is a better word to use. In fact, quite the opposite. I like calling it just THIS. Buddhism speaks of "thusness" or "suchness," 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 happening like an arrow with no extra meaning – rather than labelling it.
Again, using DE labels or any other everyday label is useful as it helps communication - they are good pointers (like fingers pointing to the moon). There is nothing wrong with using them as long as their empty nature is seen (not mistaking the finger for the moon).

P.S. for fun, here is the Hemmingway passage:

"It evidently made no difference whether I was there to look after things or not. I had imagined that the condition of the cars, whether or not things were obtainable, the smooth functioning of the business of removing wounded and sick from the dressing stations, hauling them back from the mountains to the clearing station and then distributing them to the hospitals named on their papers, depended to a considerable extent on myself. Evidently it did not matter whether I was there or not."

I love Hemingway. I get your analogy. For years there is the assumption "Everything depends on me." Then investigation reveals that things were happening anyway. The self-story claims authorship after the fact.
Love
Rali