--- In email@example.com
> hi Tony, I find, that I share *understandings* with you
**** T: Hi Karta! :-)
> **** T: I only use the word "comprehend" in an attempt to express
what is taking place, but, actually - at that moment,
> there is no self-conscious separate entity present, only a seeing
> what is there - but not as a separate
> observer, rather it is more like a being one
> with what is there - "unselfconsciously".
> > Jody: If there is a "seeing" of something, then there must be
> > and a "seen." You saw that you were more free, therefore
> > there was some kind of "you" observing the increased freedom.
> **** T: Is there not a seeing without the seer? Doesn't this
> > happen when the observer is no longer self-consciously separate
> > the observed?
> > ... It seems that perception can be aware of "what is" without
> > the function of self-identity,
> Karta: the above is how I understand Nisargadatta's "keep awareness
aware on awareness" the *witness* disappears in the NOW.
**** T: Yes, it appears to be so.
> *T: and it is only later, after the
> > experience is over, that one remembers it and says, "I have had
> > experience".
> **** T: Yes, of course, but in what I am attempting to describe,
> > the separate entity only comes in *afterwards*, because, at the
> > time
> > of direct contact, the "mind-chatter" is not active, and so NO
> > self-conscious entity is present.
> at the moment of "experiencing"!
> > ... It is only afterwards that memory recalls the experience and
> > incorporates it into the "mind-chatter",
> **** T: No, I don't think so. Awareness is direct contact and
> > perception - without the observer,
> > ... Only then is mind-chatter unable to create separation.
> peace-awareness-love, Karta
**** T: :-)