"Imagery" still exists at the level of duality.

The 'thinker' assumes that it has created the thoughts that it 'thinks'. But there is no verb "to think". There is the observation of thought and the illusion that it is the 'thinker' that has created those thoughts.

Images, on the other hand, are typically assumed as having been created by the "self", since the "self" is, first of all, an image--an image of a 'spatiality' of consciounsess--rather than a thought.

But it is necessary to stand outside of both thoughts and images to be in the "observing consciousness".

A quite common mistake is the assumption that, if you merely separate yourself from thoughts, you are in the "observing consciousness"; but, in fact, one must step outside of the spatiality of consciousness which observes thoughts to have an experience of the "observing consciousness". That is, there is just as tenacious a fixation upon images as there is upon thoughts and the assumption that thoughts are 'thought' by a 'thinker'.

In other words, it is possible for the consciousness of the "self" to observe thoughts; but it is only a capacity of the "observing consciousness" to observe the duality of the consciousness of the "self"/"not self" as well as thoughts.

Michael