Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:42 am
"One doesn't so much know pain"?!
So, do we or do we not?
OK, so suppose you go into surgery and the surgeon starts cutting into your flesh without anaesthetics. You tell him you're in pain. He replies, "You don't know that" and keeps cutting the bits he doesn't like. See?
You are missing the point here. Knowing is only possible by association.
The concept ''pain'' is known via awareness of that pain. Pain is a concept known by association via awareness. But then what knows awareness? does the pain know awareness, what knows awareness? ...isn't awareness just a mystery, and that any claim to know what awareness is must be the same mystery trying to solve it's own mystery? ...in that logic there simply is no known knower. And that all knowing is one, which equates to none...no knower...only knowing as assumed by the mystery itself....see how tricky that is? And that is the point being made here in this thread.
Same applies to the body...awareness knows the body, but what knows awareness? what's looking and knowing here? Is the body looking and knowing awareness or is awareness looking and knowing the body? and how could it be known ''what'' is looking at ''what'' here? where is the difference, can that be shown, be known, and how?
Is the body looking at you, or are you looking at the body? if you look for the looker can you actually find it? you might point to your body and say this body is looking...so then that means we have a body that can look at itself, ...but can a body really see itself...no of course not the seer cannot see itself. . . except as an assumed conceptual image, an idea within it's own imageless mystery.
It really is not known what awareness is ...there is an awareness of knowing, but it is not known what that knowing awareness is...for the awareness is a mystery even to itself...therefore any claimed knower is a fiction within the same mysterious not knowing knowing.
What you are talking about is the fictional story of I know I am in pain...where there is an apparent I that claims to know itself, which in truth can only be an assumption. But nothing wrong with an assumption as every assumption is an integral part of the mystery of being awareness itself...but it's still an assumption.
The point is, without awareness there is no sensation to be aware of, like wise, without sensation there is no awareness. Both awareness and sensation arise mutually in the same instant, there is no separation or any room to make ownership or claim on it...reality is one undivided seamless unclaimed unitary action phenomena. Any claim is an assumed claim.
Neither sensation or awareness can be seen..these can only be known as a fictional conceptual construct of the invisible, appearing from the invisible, to the invisible and as and through the invisible within the invisible.
Awareness has never seen a concept it knows.... a concept is just an idea known. It appears here there is an apparent identification with a concept as being something in and of itself separate from the knowing awareness of it...there is not, except the conceptual idea, already within itself as awareness..the invisible mystery.
I hope this makes no/sense to you.
.