Mind and Self-Liberation
-
Something I wrote in another forum, and re-edited, after discussing with Thusness (and still probably imperfect).
Quote:Originally Posted by Subjectivity9
S9: No, what else are phenomena then, besides thoughts? Don’t say Awareness, please, as we both agree that there is ‘Constant Awareness,’ but sometimes Awareness is without illusions, illusion being described as wrongful view/or wrong perspective.
When we think that Awareness is being thought, what we are saying is that Awareness cannot be without thoughts. Any advanced meditator will tell you, in a New York minute, that this simply isn’t the case. Granted thoughts cannot be without Awareness, but this is because Awareness lends temporary existence to these thoughts, not the other way around. Can you see that they are not equal in this way? Thoughts are pure imagination, just as dreams are.First of all there is no objective reality to thoughts, vision of tree, etc. Like David Carse said, what all this is is All That Is, pure Being Consciousness Bliss Outpouring; it is your perception of it as a physical world that is maya, illusion.
Awareness is not a tree or a thought in the sense that Awareness obviously is not objective like a 'thing' existing 'outside' separate from us. In fact, nothing exists 'outside', as explained earlier:
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
In actuality no sound, no thought, no perception, is actually an objective reality. They are only Mind, or Awareness, they do not exist outside. There is no objectively existing tree or a thought. The notion of sensations and perceptions having objectivity is really just an illusory mental construct. Seeing through this mental construct, one dissolves everything into just one whole field of experiential reality. The self-manifestations commonly known as 'objects' aren't really 'outer objects' but are rather perceptions arising and vanishing momentarily in/as this One Mind, so that cannot form an identity of sorts. Since there is no objective reality to begin with, Awareness cannot be identified with any objects. However one who experiences One Mind is also different from the I AM stage since the One Mind is not purely Subjective Reality like a Subject behind all things, rather one experiences non-dual with everything perceived/experienced, one whole experiential field in which subject and object are inseparably incorporated. There is no more sense of 'distance' between awareness and objects, perceiver and perceived, for the very substance of all sensations/perceptions IS Awareness. Awareness is the very substance of the entire experiential field, not an observer observing it. There is no Awareness inside and objects outside, there is just Oneness appearing as sights, sounds, thoughts, etc.
At this stage it's seen nothing exists outside of or apart from Mind/Awareness, so all is just manifestation of the One Mind and is none other than It, so you dissolve all dharmas (notions of objectivity) into One Mind. Many Advaitins do eventually reach this stage.
So the first step is seeing the falsity of the division between Mind and phenomena, giving rise to non-dual insight or One Mind. However, there will still be some remaining notions of the One Mind as something permanent and independent. There must be insight into 'how' Mind and phenomena actually co-arise - there isn't a sense of Mind as a Source, and phenomena arising out of, or within, or being part of, this One Mind. Phenomena actually has no beginning and end, and therefore we cannot say phenomena began and originated or ended from/within a permanent Source. All these are false notions which are also dependent on notion of time, an illusory construct.
The notion of One Mind as permanent as opposed to things beginning and ending in time, the notion of Mind being the source of appearances coming and going within this One Source, are all false views, and are all the views of inherency. Time, beginning, end, and an origin/Source, etc are all false views. One must see all these are just more illusory mental constructs in the same way as 'objectivity' is, there must be an arising insight that burns away these views. If we see that mind is not the 'source of phenomena', then we realise there is just phenomena, sensations and perceptions which are all 'mind', but without an independent, permanent, substratum, essence or Source. There is no temporal existence beginning and ending, arising from and then subsiding back 'in' Mind, since mind and phenomena (can't even be separated) have 'both' existed since beginningless 'time', there is no One Mind being the first cause, no Mind being permanent vs phenomena being temporal (having beginning and end) -- can't even be divided in the subtlest way -- there is just one co-arising without subject and object division, just phenomena/mind. All phenomena are timeless and without origin. There is just mind, but not a permanent independent mind/source, but mind as transient phenomena itself, without beginning or end, without time. One then understands what Zen Master Dogen mean by 'Impermanence is Buddha-Nature'. When Zen Master Dogen said Impermanence, he was very clear that his Impermanence is Timeless Impermanence, not temporal existence existing against a permanent background (I AM), nor a permanent undivided One Mind. And yes Awareness is ever-present but not a dead ever-presence but a dynamic ever-presencing as the flow/transience. Not Awareness, more like 'Awaring'. When there is insight into BOTH non-dual + anatta, there is no more referencing back into something permanent and independent, instead there is complete affirmation of transience. There is no more desync of view with (nondual) experience, no more dualising of Absolute and relative, absolutely no divisions.
There is no inherently existing or permanent 'Awareness' entity, just these sensations and perceptions and thoughts which are not objective, but not subjective, either. No awareness not as in 'dead' but no awareness as a metaphysical essence or observer of things or the ultimate source of all things. Everything is a radiant expression of itself, and not a manifestation of some One Mind or Source. The expression itself is mind/awareness, not expression 'OF' but expression 'as'.
There is absolutely no subject and object in Buddhism, neither is there an inherently existing integral reality of both subject and object, like a truly existing One Mind and Source, in and from which phenomena arise. There is no inherent, independent, permanent identity of sorts.
I think Richard Herman wrote that previously:
Yes, it is the absolute "elimination of the background" without remainder. It is the affirmation of multiplicity, not dispersion, but multiplicity. The world references nothing but the world. Each thing is radiant expression of itself. There is no support, no ground. No awareness. No awareness.
"All dharmas are resolved in One Mind. One Mind resolves into...."
There is the radiant world. just the radiant world. No awareness.
That is the Abbott slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function.
There is no question of whether Awareness depends on thoughts when there is no independent, permanent entity, or separate 'Awareness' to begin with. When one experiences non-duality, one knows that awareness isn't separate from thoughts and phenomena. Next, one must realise that there is no 'awareness' as the source in/from which phenomena arise and subside, there is no source, time, beginning and end, independence, permanence, just phenomena. There is just whatever arise according to conditions, dependent origination. There is nothing subjective, nor objective. There is just whatever happens. 'Abbot slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function.' Then, you will also understand why the Buddha in the Nikaya or Theravada Buddhism is able to talk about awareness without making it something more ultimate than the transient mind -- he never capitalize 'Awareness', he only described dharmas, phenomena, but that all sensations are self-luminous or aware where it is is automatically implied since there is no duality of perceiver and perceived nor any notion of any inherent self nor an ultimate source in his teachings. In other words in the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, there is no hearer/seer/etc.
Guru Padmasambhava says:
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
So 'no awareness' does not really mean no awareness, but no ultimate identity (whether Objective nor Subjective nor Integrated), Self, subject-object division, nor essence, permanence, independence, etc. to awareness.Quote:S9: I do not deny that thought exists anymore than I deny that imagination exists. What I do deny is that thought has its own Essence and that thought is as Equally REAL as Awareness. Neither am I saying that thoughts have its own essence. Thoughts, like trees, do not have essence nor objective reality. They are all just Mind only, but Mind also has no independent or permanent reality. Mind is Luminous, Vivid, but Empty, and cannot be spoken of as an entity apart from phenomena. Viewed correctly, whatever arise, is Mind, but also there is no independent/permanent Mind as a source of arising, Mind too is empty (of self-existing independence, permanence, etc). When we say thought is Awareness, I don't mean Awareness as an unchanging entity (awareness is empty), but Awareness as a point of luminous clarity, as a manifestation.
So the Third Karmapa wrote:
Through the examination of external objects we see the mind, not the objects.
Through the examination of the mind we see its empty essence, but not the mind.
Through the examination of both, attachment to duality disappears by itself.
May the clear light, the true essence of mind, be recognized.
.........
Self-manifestation, which has never existed as such, is erroneously seen as an object.
Through ignorance, self-awareness is mistakenly experienced as an I.
Through attachment to this duality we are caught in the conditioned world.
May the root of confusion be found.Quote:S9: Thoughts liberate? I don’t think so.
Even the limited mind (or ego mind) is not liberated…it can only clarify itself, or come to an understanding of a limited kind. Mind is a perfect tool for clarifying what it Awareness isn’t.
Awareness does not become liberated either, as it was never actually captured within thought. You can turn your head in any instant are see Awareness in its full glory, whole and complete within its self. Thoughts cannot ever alter Awareness. Thought only captures thought and creates confusion within thoughts.We have to understand that liberation is understood different according to one's insight.
Firstly, when Awareness is understood dualistically, as Subject opposed to Object, liberation consists of detaching Subject from Object. This is called Disassociation. One disassociate from all objects to 'enter' Pure Subject, and so freedom/liberation is the 'freedom from' the pain of finite objects, as Ken Wilber said: "With this discovery… you are halfway home. You have disidentified from any and all finite objects; you rest as infinite Consciousness. You are free, open, empty, clear, radiant, released, liberated, exalted, drenched in a blissful emptiness that exists prior to space, prior to time, prior to tears and terror, prior to pain and mortality and suffering and death. You have found the great Unborn, the vast Abyss, the unqualifiable Ground of all that is, and all that was, and all that ever shall be."
And Longchen said: Just my opinion only,
I think Eckhart Tolle may have been suffering alot and suddenly he 'let go' of trying to work out his problems. This results in a dissociation from thoughts which give rise to the experience of Presence.
To me, 'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'.
However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.
But as Ken Wilber said, that is just halfway, not the full insight into the true nature of Awareness, but just an initial glimpse of Awareness's luminosity. At this stage Awareness is still understood dualistically, and liberation consists of 'disassociation'.
The next step is the insight of non-duality which Ken Wilber too describes well later in his article, in which there is no more attempt to disassociate. However there are many levels or depths of non-dual insight. At first there will be inherent view of Awareness as the substance, but one will not disassociate, one will experience all sensations to be the substance of Awareness itself without division of perceiver and perceived. But there is no clarity of view.
One must have further insight into Anatta, one is freed from the bonds of inherency and duality, there is deep insight into what is 'always and already so', or in Dzogchen where the term 'self-liberation' originated, 'spontaneously self-perfected' -- always already, all arising are by nature luminous and empty, non-dual, anatta, empty, but we mistaken it as dualistic and inherent. It is the deeply rooted wrong view that shapes and distorts experience that causes all problems.So at the moment when you see that all arising are by nature non-dual and empty, whatever is experienced: sounds, thoughts, sensations, everything just self-liberates on its own accord. Phenomena are always already arising and subsiding, but once self-liberation is experienced, phenomena arise and subside like drawing on pond and leaves no traces, there is no grasping. Best part is that NO EFFORT is required to disassociate from phenomena (when there is no source behind, what is there to dis-associate?) or maintain any state in order to liberate, the only problem is our inherent and dualistic views. But if we see with our entire body/mind/soul that all sensations and phenomena are by nature luminous and empty, they spontaneously self-liberate effortlessly. But if we view them dualistically and inherently, that is bondage. In Thusness words, "it is not negative feelings is already liberated... all sort of nonsense". And it is not that there is nothing to do as in the case of Advaita Vedanta. They missed the importance of dissolving the views and how it relates to true liberation. In Buddhism one must see how ignorance is the cause of suffering and how wrong views shape our experience. It is the wrong view that causes psychological and spiritual pain, and at any moment there is wrong view, you will experience suffering. Practice is thus dynamic to see such tendencies arise moment to moment. Yet even after liberation, sour is still sour, pain is still pain, whatever arise according to conditions cannot be denied, yet simultaneously there is no suffering.
And as Thusness wrote before... http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.c...%20Bodhidharma
It is important to know that mind is itself liberation. That is why knowing the nature of our mind is the way of liberation. If Liberation is not experienced, then the clarity is still not there. There is no true understanding of what mind is.
Liberation is this Pristine Awareness itself in its natural state. That is why understanding this Pristine Awareness is the direct path towards liberation. If we cannot see that the 5 aggregates are themselves our Buddha Nature, then we will not understand there is nothing to shunt from the transience. Thought liberates, sound liberates, tastes liberates. The transience liberates. If we do not see that, then we are taking a gradual path. It is also not advisable to speak too much about spontaneous arising or self liberation. It can be quite misleading.
Anyway this post is a good read and is related, Reflection and Presence: The Dialectic of AwakeningQuote:S9: Just because illusion doesn’t have its own essence and only borrows this from Awareness to exist, doesn’t mean that illusion is Not an illusion, anymore than a unicorn is real because it borrows thought or imagination. Obviously a unicorn is a product of our IMAGINATION. Is it not? This world is a unicorn.
Warm Regards,
S9What is illusion is the sense of a truly existing 'me' perceiving a truly existing 'object'.
For example if we imagine a unicorn and think that it is truly existing, that is an illusion.
If we imagine a unicorn, but does not treat that as truly existing, then it is just a thought but not an illusion. We are not under the illusion of it as truly existing.
Thoughts, sight, vision, they arise and subside but are not illusion. Thought is a vivid luminous presence and is empty/ungraspable, but is not an illusion, it is undeniably present and vivid as awareness. It is our view of subject and object duality, perceiver and perceived, or viewing things 'inherently', self-existing and permanent that is illusion.
The world (there is no world in the objective sense anyway, just one field of experiential reality) btw, is not just made of thoughts. Stop thinking, you still spontaneously hear, see, smell, taste, touch. And anyway I won't even say that thoughts are illusions. Thought is just as it is, it is our clinging to them as objective, real, permanent, existing, etc that is illusion. -
Thank you:)
-
Hi AEN,
I can see that you are trying to do a summary of our conversations and at the same time include this summary into your reply to Subjectivity9 -- tying to kill 2 birds with one stone. :P
By doing so, it makes ur reply appears confusing as some of the points we conversed may not be relevant to the question asked by Subjectivity9. It is a good effort though.
I will go through it and reply you later. It is a long post. :)
-
Thanks Thusness... Will be looking forward to the reply :)
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Something I wrote in another forum, and re-edited, after discussing with Thusness (and still probably imperfect).
Quote:Originally Posted by Subjectivity9S9: No, what else are phenomena then, besides thoughts? Don’t say Awareness, please, as we both agree that there is ‘Constant Awareness,’ but sometimes Awareness is without illusions, illusion being described as wrongful view/or wrong perspective.
When we think that Awareness is being thought, what we are saying is that Awareness cannot be without thoughts. Any advanced meditator will tell you, in a New York minute, that this simply isn’t the case. Granted thoughts cannot be without Awareness, but this is because Awareness lends temporary existence to these thoughts, not the other way around. Can you see that they are not equal in this way? Thoughts are pure imagination, just as dreams are.I think it is better to approach this way:
Non-conceptual thought VS conceptual thought instead of Awareness VS Thoughts.
If you see it is “Awareness Vs Thoughts”, then it is dualistic and inherent view. If you see it as non-conceptual thought, then eventually you will realize both non-conceptual and conceptual thoughst share the same luminous essence and empty nature. Non-conceptual thought is non-verbal and direct. It appears still and with the tendency to reify it is often mistaken as ‘Unchanging Witness’.
Therefore in your experience of the “I AMness”, I advise you to understand this experience from the perspective of “direct and non-conceptual aspect of perception” and how by being “direct and non-conceptual” creates that sort of ‘certain, unshakable and undeniable’ confidence. That is, if a practitioner is fully authenticated from moment to moment the arising and passing phenomena, the practitioner will always have this sensation of ‘certain and unshaken’ confidence.
First of all there is no objective reality to thoughts, vision of tree, etc. Like David Carse said, what all this is is All That Is, pure Being Consciousness Bliss Outpouring; it is your perception of it as a physical world that is maya, illusion.
Awareness is not a tree or a thought in the sense that Awareness obviously is not objective like a 'thing' existing 'outside' separate from us. In fact, nothing exists 'outside', as explained earlier:
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"What David Carse said requires more than the “I AMness” realization you narrated in your post “Certainty of Being”. It also requires more than just glimpses of the non-dual state that can be induced by penetrating the question:
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
It requires a practitioner to be sufficiently clear about the cause of ‘separation’ so that the perceptual knot that creates the ‘division’ is thoroughly seen through. At this phase, non-dual becomes quite effortless. The three following articles that you posted in your blog are all about the thorough insights of seeing through the illusionary division created by mental constructs. They are all very well written. It is worth revisiting these articles.
1. Body/No-Body
2. The Teachings of Atmananda and the Direct Path
Of all the 3 articles, I like Joan’s article Body/No-body best. Do not simply go through the motion of reading, read with a reverent heart. Though a simple article but is not any less insightful than those written by well-known masters, it has all the answers and pointers you need. :)
Next, there are several points you made that is related to the deconstruction of mental objects but you should also note that there exist a predictable relationship between the 'mental object to be de-constructed' and 'the experiences and realizations'. For example “The Teachings of Atmananda and the Direct Path” will, more often than not lead a practitioner to the realization of One Mind whereas the article from Joan will lead one to the experiential insight of No-Mind. As a general guideline,
1. If you de-construct the subjective pole, you will be led to the experience of No-Mind.
2. If you de-construct the objective pole, you will be led to the experience of One-Mind.
3. If you go through a process of de-constructing prepositional phrases like "in/out" "inside/outside" "into/onto," "within/without" "here/there", you will dissolve the illusionary nature of locality and time.
4. If you simply go through the process of self-enquiry by disassociation and elimination without clearly understanding the non-inherent and dependent originated nature of phenomena, you will be led to the experience of “I AMness”.
Lastly, not to talk too much about self-liberation or the natural state, it can sound extremely misleading. Although Joan Tollifson spoke of the natural non-dual state is something “so simple, so immediate, so obvious, so ever-present that we often overlook”, we have to understand that to even come to this realization of the “Simplicity of What Is”, a practitioner will need to undergo a painstaking process of de-constructing the mental constructs. We must be deeply aware of the ‘blinding spell’ in order to understand consciousness. I believe Joan must have gone through a period of deep confusions, not to under-estimate it. :)
-
Originally posted by Thusness:
I think it is better to approach this way:
Non-conceptual thought VS conceptual thought instead of Awareness VS Thoughts.
If you see it is “Awareness Vs Thoughts”, then it is dualistic and inherent view. If you see it as non-conceptual thought, then eventually you will realize both non-conceptual and conceptual thoughst share the same luminous essence and empty nature. Non-conceptual thought is non-verbal and direct. It appears still and with the tendency to reify it is often mistaken as ‘Unchanging Witness’.
Therefore in your experience of the “I AMness”, I advise you to understand this experience from the perspective of “direct and non-conceptual aspect of perception” and how by being “direct and non-conceptual” creates that sort of ‘certain, unshakable and undeniable’ confidence. That is, if a practitioner is fully authenticated from moment to moment the arising and passing phenomena, the practitioner will always have this sensation of ‘certain and unshaken’ confidence.
What David Carse said requires more than the “I AMness” realization you narrated in your post “Certainty of Being”. It also requires more than just glimpses of the non-dual state that can be induced by penetrating the question:
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
It requires a practitioner to be sufficiently clear about the cause of ‘separation’ so that the perceptual knot that creates the ‘division’ is thoroughly seen through. At this phase, non-dual becomes quite effortless. The three following articles that you posted in your blog are all about the thorough insights of seeing through the illusionary division created by mental constructs. They are all very well written. It is worth revisiting these articles.
1. Body/No-Body
2. The Teachings of Atmananda and the Direct Path
Of all the 3 articles, I like Joan’s article Body/No-body best. Do not simply go through the motion of reading, read with a reverent heart. Though a simple article but is not any less insightful than those written by well-known masters, it has all the answers and pointers you need. :)
Next, there are several points you made that is related to the deconstruction of mental objects but you should also note that there exist a predictable relationship between the 'mental object to be de-constructed' and 'the experiences and realizations'. For example “The Teachings of Atmananda and the Direct Path” will, more often than not lead a practitioner to the realization of One Mind whereas the article from Joan will lead one to the experiential insight of No-Mind. As a general guideline,
1. If you de-construct the subjective pole, you will be led to the experience of No-Mind.
2. If you de-construct the objective pole, you will be led to the experience of One-Mind.
3. If you go through a process of de-constructing prepositional phrases like "in/out" "inside/outside" "into/onto," "within/without" "here/there", you will dissolve the illusionary nature of locality and time.
4. If you simply go through the process of self-enquiry by disassociation and elimination without clearly understanding the non-inherent and dependent originated nature of phenomena, you will be led to the experience of “I AMness”.
Lastly, not to talk too much about self-liberation or the natural state, it can sound extremely misleading. Although Joan Tollifson spoke of the natural non-dual state is something “so simple, so immediate, so obvious, so ever-present that we often overlook”, we have to understand that to even come to this realization of the “Simplicity of What Is”, a practitioner will need to undergo a painstaking process of de-constructing the mental constructs. We must be deeply aware of the ‘blinding spell’ in order to understand consciousness. I believe Joan must have gone through a period of deep confusions, not to under-estimate it. :)
Amazing depth of description.
Thanks for sharing, Thusness.
-
Thanks for the reply, Thusness!
-
I want to say that I v highly recommend the book "Standing As Awareness: The Direct Path" by Greg Goode to forummers here.
I just read the first 34 pages of the book today, it is a truly good guide for the practitioner to investigate. One of the clearest and most practical Advaita books I've read yet.
I actually bought the e-book years ago, but just got the hardcopy because the newly published edition included an additional 3 chapters at the front. The 3 chapters definitely made it worth the re-purchase.The first 3 chapters is a guide for the practitioner to investigate their own direct experience to realise the Witness, see through the illusion of objectivity, and finally the collapse of the Witness. Very well written and very good guide. It is longer and more detailed than the article given in the link.
The rest of the chapters are also very well written.
It has 10 customer reviews at Amazon the past several months, all of which gave the book 5 stars. http://www.amazon.com/Standing-as-Awareness-Greg-Goode/dp/0956309151
You can buy it at SGD19.42 at http://opentrolley.com.sg/SearchBooks.aspx?Keyword=standing%20as%20awareness&Value=Title
-
There are a lot of good instructions and practical experiments which I find very helpful, and I'm just going to quote one (among others which are just as good!) - in fact I'm not going to quote the experiment itself, just 'the results' that are discovered through the experiment.
2 page excerpt:
What is realized in this experiment?
You realize this - through a series of stages, the cup you had earlier thought to be an independent physical object is actually nothing other than awareness itself. The stages can be seen as follows:
1. The cup is not separate from form. Visually, you experience colors and forms. But vision does not directly pick up anything beyond that. It can be transformational and perhaps thrilling to realize how much actually does not appear to direct visual experience. You do not directly experience any independence of the cup. In other words, vision itself does not communicate anything like "cup that exists whether you see it or not." In fact you do not directly experience independence or separation at all.
You do not actually experience a cup apart from the forms (colors and shapes) that are your direct experience at this moment. You do not experience these colors and shapes pointing outside of themselves to a true, physical cup lying beyond. You have no way of getting between these visual forms and a "real" cup so as to be able to compare the colors to the cup. None of that is given in your direct experience. The colors and shapes directly given in vision do not communicate that it they are "about" the cup or that they "refer to" the cup or that they are "caused by" the cup. Aboutness, reference and causation are not part of your direct experience. Sure, there are intellectual theories about these abstract things, but they are not seen or given in your direct visual experience. So there is no cup given in direct experience.
2. Form is not separate from seeing. Next, you come to realize that you do not experience form apart from the faculty of seeing. You cannot separate form from seeing, even in imagination. You cannot get between seeing and form in order to make a comparison. You have no experience of pre-existing forms, some which happen to be seen, and some which happen not to be seen. An unseen form is not experienced anywhere, just like an unthought thought.
This leads to the shocking realization that you do not see form at any time! Form is not something external that is independent of seeing; form goes into the very idea of seeing. Seeing is not a function that operates on form, it is another word for form. So you do not actually see form.
3. Seeing is not separate from witnessing awareness. Next, you come to realize that seeing itself cannot be separated from the awareness to which it arises. When seeing is present, its presence is noted by awareness. When seeing is absent, its presence is noted by awareness. When seeing is absent, its absence is noted by awareness. Other than awareness, seeing has no other independent way of arising or being experienced. You have no other access to seeing. You cannot get between awareness and seeing to watch them make contact with each other. When seeing is not present, it is not like an actor in the wings, waiting to come onstage.
This leads to another fresh realization - because seeing is not something that happens independently of awareness, you are actually not ever aware of seeing. It makes no sense to think that seeing is truly an object. Rather, awareness is actually another word for seeing. Because seeing has nowhere to go and nothing to be other than awareness, awareness is actually the nature of seeing. This same nature cascades all the way through to the supposed physical object, which itself is nothing other than awareness. This is your direct experience at all times.