who or what witnesses?


if myself-me is this mind
thinking its endless stream of thoughts

then who or what witnesses?


if myself-me is these feelings
of pain or rejection, satisfaction or joy

then who or what witnesses?


if myself-me is this timeline of
experiences – the good the bad and the ugly

then who or what witnesses?


thinking self, feeling self, historical self
– all are creations of consciousness
think-ing, feel-ing, experience-ing


try a little thought experiment:
suspend the myself-me concept
just for a moment –
just to see for yourself
(it won’t go away, you can
adopt it again, or not)

what remains?









the you-ing of the universe


That, which lives this body-brain
That, which breathes this breath
That, which beats this heart
grows these fingernails
orders these hormones
divides these cells
grays this hair
senses the sensuous
perceives the perceived
thinks these thoughts…

That, is Life’s unimaginable play:
it’s the dance of Shiva
it’s the shakti of Amma
it’s the poet’s Beloved
it’s the intimate Presence
of undivided Experiencing
timelessly and ubiquitously
YOU-ing the universe


beyond notions of self and no-self


Apperception that nothing – no-thing – exists in itself, independent of the workings of perception negates all possibility of the objective existence of both things and someone who sees/senses them.

And further, since the workings of perception cannot exist independently of basic Awareness, it’s inescapable that this very Awareness must be the source and the substance of all appearances – all phenomena.

This is the understanding that lies beyond notions of self and no-self.

With this I cannot argue:  everything that can be experienced arises in Awareness.

Can anything other than
be proven to exist?

Experiencing is another word for Awareness.

(but I prefer ‘Awareing’ over ‘Awareness’ because to me
Awareness is dynamic and fluid, even when utterly poised)