Looking for a guide

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie

I think I’ve fallen into the trap of trying to drop things and am driving myself a wee bit crazy. I keep thinking of common stories that go around my mind and then focusing on the sensations and getting more and more irritated that it’s not “working.” I’ve started “doing” rather than “letting.” And doing implies a doer, a discrete being who chooses and works at this process in search of “success.” And the doer stands directly in the way of the possibility of letting go. The doer reinforces the sense of a self and the sense of ownership of stories.

Yes, exactly — noticing this loop is the seeing.
The moment "doing" appears, the doer "sneaks in" too — and now we’re not just experiencing, we’re trying to manage experience.
But look closely:
Is anything actually being done by a "someone"?
Or is all of it — thoughts, stories, tension, even the attempt to let go — simply happening?
There’s nothing wrong with any of it — not even with the trying. It’s just what’s appearing. It doesn’t need to be dropped. Just seen. It's the story self-organising. You don’t need to succeed. You don’t even need to let go.
You already don’t own the stories. They’re just visiting. And that’s enough.

Notice resistance and/or fear as they appear – don’t go looking for them – they are the red flashing light that noticing what’s real must happen. There is nothing to be fixed, just to be noticed and released WHEN it happens :). That’s what flow is about. Otherwise it becomes a self improvement project - all done to benefit what/whom? ;)

The stories feel like the only thing keeping this dust-body-thing up. Like they’re some sort of dust-glue holding the sense of self together. Who expended all that energy trying to protect a non-self from another non-self? Who has all of these elaborate and draining routines of maintaining contact and connection with others? When the stories are seen through, it’s a relief but there’s also a sense of… what’s left if those are gone?

Yes… it can feel like the stories are the glue holding the dust-body together.
But notice: when the glue dissolves — does the body fall apart? Or is something simpler revealed?
If the stories aren't holding “you” together, then what’s actually here, without them?
Not a vacuum. Not a hole. But life — unfiltered, unstructured, unclaimed.
What if what’s left isn't nothing — but everything?
And the "effort" of holding the self together — maintaining roles, impressions, connection — was just resistance to the simplicity already here?
This isn't the loss of something real. It’s the end of unnecessary pretending. I know the Christmas analogy did not apply to you, but you get the gist. It’s always been just life/just this expressing itself, so nothing real to be missed.

Except I’m also writing this and attempting to do some work which involves reading and writing and thinking and evaluating and comparing. The thoughts and concepts are being worked on and happening. How do these fit into DE? It feels like more than sensation. Are thoughts of this nature a sensation?

Yes — it's all just this.
No need to divide it into sensation, sound, colour, taste, smell, meaning. We’ve seen already that they are not separate but artificially isolated by labels. No special lanes for thoughts, or colours, or sensations – there are just aspects of this – different shape in the lava lamp but still the wax. They are like the peaks and troughs in the intensity of feeling, or like the different nuances in colour – it’s all the lava lamp with meaning attached. That’s how it is - perfect already.
There’s no need to label or categorise. Just this seamless, alive happening — not from a self, not for a self — just life, already whole.
Thoughts are part of this too. Their presence is direct experience — the content may be a story, but the thought appearing is DE, like a sound or colour.
There’s no issue with thought itself — unless it turns inward and starts spinning about itself. Thoughts about thoughts about thoughts… that’s when things can feel tangled or overwhelming.
But when thought simply reports, responds, names gently — there’s flow. No separation.
Before the sorting, before the need to understand and categorise — what’s left?
Just this. Effortless. Inseparable. Already whole.
Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

Been really enjoying the questions lately. I can really feel the unwinding, and that a lot of my expectations for how this process will go and how transformative it will be have been dropped. That makes it much easier to see and to be open and curious.

Is anything actually being done by a "someone"?
Or is all of it — thoughts, stories, tension, even the attempt to let go — simply happening?

Yeah… I think you’ve asked this question a hundred times but it is landing a little differently. I know the right answer, intellectually but it feels a bit different now. The mental reminders to relax effort, to let go, to stay present seem a bit more fraudulent, a bit less convincingly in charge. The order - reminding self to do something, then doing something - seems suspect. I no longer believe the “manager” voice in the mind that is saying it’s in charge. It still talks, but it’s a split second too slow. It’s describing, not directing.

Notice resistance and/or fear as they appear – don’t go looking for them....Otherwise it becomes a self improvement project - all done to benefit what/whom? ;)

Yes, good advice to not go looking for problems, and something here is absolutely obsessed with self improvement projects. There’s still a grasping for self-improvement, and a belief that improvement will bring relief from suffering, rather than dropping the story of someone who needs improving. That improvement can benefit is a story.

I feel like I’m addicted to this story… (and yes, I know that’s a story too). There’s this belief that “if I improve myself enough then I will always have love and connection.” The belief feels like something really big and heavy and cold in my chest and torso. And I can see that it’s a story, and feel it unwinding.

when the glue dissolves — does the body fall apart? Or is something simpler revealed?
If the stories aren't holding “you” together, then what’s actually here, without them?

Peace. A lot of space. Quietness. There is an open embracing of everything. It’s like that feeling when you see something incredibly beautiful and you’re momentarily stunned into silence.

What if what’s left isn't nothing — but everything?
And the "effort" of holding the self together — maintaining roles, impressions, connection — was just resistance to the simplicity already here?

That’s quite beautifully said.

When the sense of self drops away, there really is a lot more, isn’t there? The more selfing there is, the less of everything else there is.

Before the sorting, before the need to understand and categorise — what’s left?

Aren’t sorting and understanding part of DE too? I feel like I’m not really understanding how actual thought work fits into life anymore and what the role of intentional thinking is. I’ve overcorrected a bit and reduced thinking in favor of being in the here and now, but I think there’s a cost associated with that. Ideas don’t come out fully formed; they take a lot of work and refinement and I’m finding myself engaging in that cognitive work much less.

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie

Aren’t sorting and understanding part of DE too? I feel like I’m not really understanding how actual thought work fits into life anymore and what the role of intentional thinking is. I’ve overcorrected a bit and reduced thinking in favour of being in the here and now, but I think there’s a cost associated with that. Ideas don’t come out fully formed; they take a lot of work and refinement and I’m finding myself engaging in that cognitive work much less.

Yes — everything is just happening. Even thinking - sorting, analysing, planning.
There’s no need to push that away or treat it like a mistake. Thinking isn’t the problem. Believing the thinker is.
When the thought is assumed to be a reality (not just an empty description) — “I am doing this,” or “I should be doing that” — that’s when the contraction starts.
But when thought is just seen as part of the flow, as a natural unfolding — it’s no different than wind in the trees, or a heartbeat. Even "intentional" thinking has a place — but it’s not personal. What looks like deliberate cognition is just thought appearing in a certain pattern, in response to certain conditions.
There’s no need to throw away thinking. Just see that there’s no thinker.
So yes, meaning in general is part of DE, but the actual content is not DE. And meaning is okay, unless it becomes a hamster wheel of thoughts about thoughts.
Let thought come when it’s useful. Let it rest when it’s not. That's is the flow...
Notice when it’s just describing what already is — and when it starts claiming authorship or control.
That quietness you mentioned — that stunned silence in the face of beauty — that’s always here, beneath the grasping. Thinking can still arise within it. And so can poetry, insight, ideas, clarity.
There’s room for everything. You don’t have to manage any of it.

Maybe this is a good moment to revisit that old metaphor - thoughts are like icons on a desktop. You don’t need to delete the icons — they’re part of the interface. But you also don’t need to believe that there is an actual mail box.
The folder labelled “Me improving” doesn’t actually contain a solid, separate self. Click it, and what’s inside? Just more icons. Just more thought.
Same with the story “this should be working,” or “I’m doing it wrong.”
Those are just icons — familiar shortcuts. You can watch them pop up without getting lost in the illusion that they point to something real, permanent, or personal. Everything is still happening — thinking, feeling, even self-referencing — but nothing needs to be believed. Nothing needs to be dropped. Just seen for what it is: a mental image, a label, an icon. No more, no less. And when that’s clear…
what’s already here underneath it all?
So, before the next story loads…
What’s here before “this is a process,” before “me,” before “doing it right,” before “how should I think”? Just this, isn’t it? Already happening…
Thoughts may appear — but does anything need to be done with them?
Do they need to be chased, fixed, believed?

Just because a thought appears, doesn’t mean it’s an instruction. It’s a (conditioned)description, a reflex, a voice echoing through repetition. Like a weather report, not a command.
It says “rain is coming” — but does it make the rain fall?
You don’t need to do anything with the thought.
Let it speak, if it wants to — and pass, like a breeze through an open window.
When seen as description, it loses authority. It no longer drives the story.
And without the story — what’s left?

And just for the heart — something for enjoyment, and maybe for softening even more into what is:

The Guest House
by Jalaluddin Rumi

This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.

A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
as an unexpected visitor.

Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they’re a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still, treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.

The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
meet them at the door laughing,
and invite them in.

Be grateful for whoever comes,
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.

Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

I really liked the Rumi poem; thank you. I think I've read it before but it certainly hit differently today.

thoughts are like icons on a desktop. You don’t need to delete the icons — they’re part of the interface. But you also don’t need to believe that there is an actual mail box.
The folder labelled “Me improving” doesn’t actually contain a solid, separate self. Click it, and what’s inside?

Ha! I came to more or less this same place on a walk just now, like, five minutes ago.

It felt like the identity of the fixer has dissolved. The shoulds and the concerns about shortcomings have quieted, and it’s clear that there’s a voice labelling sensations as things that I should fix. There was a belief that a tightness meant I was inherently unkind, or ungrateful, or shameful. It’s seen now that the tightness and the belief are not connected.

And there was still a lot of identity wrapped up in the one who needed fixing. But it’s just a sensation of tightness in the heart and a lot of beliefs stapled on top. The beliefs and the tightness aren’t related, except by an assumption.

what’s already here underneath it all?

Stillness.

The fixer and the one who needed fixing had a constant push-pull relationship of need and control. It’s quieter now.

What’s here before “this is a process,” before “me,” before “doing it right,” before “how should I think”? Just this, isn’t it? Already happening…
Thoughts may appear — but does anything need to be done with them?
Do they need to be chased, fixed, believed?

Nope.

And without the story — what’s left?

Quietness. And the aliveness of whatever is actually here.

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie
That’s beautifully seen! The fixer dissolving along with the one who needs fixing is such a powerful glimpse —not just conceptually, but as direct seeing that the tension, the belief, the label are not inherently connected. Just thoughts about sensations — and assumptions that something must be done.

The beliefs and the tightness aren’t related, except by an assumption.

Exactly that. And when that assumption drops, what’s left?
Stillness. But look ... it is not something earned and not the result of hard inner work. It is just what was already here — veiled by the dust of interpretation. That "tightness in the heart" doesn’t mean anything about (a) you. It’s not proof of a flaw. It’s not evidence of being broken. It’s just what’s here.
And now, you’re seeing very clearly that: thoughts can appear without needing a thinker, sensations can arise without being "about" anything, a sense of self can be implied without it ever having existed. That’s the unwinding.
So yes — quietness, and aliveness. No process to control. No "you" to do it right. Just this, arising.
And if the fixer "returns" (it might!), it will be (as it has always been) just another icon, another folder. You already know where to look. Or not look. 😉
Just this.

So… Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?
Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

And when that assumption drops, what’s left?

The contraction in the chest continues and the thoughts continue. But since they’re no longer connected, they can’t reinforce one another so they tend to subside.

Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

The illusion is that there’s a self who:

Makes choices and has agency
Needs improvement and makes improvement
Directs thinking and action

The truth is that thoughts are conditioned, arise on their own, and tend to co-arise with another thought taking credit for the first thought. As a result, there’s an illusion of choosing, directing, and being responsible for everything that happens, when in reality, whatever is happening is just happening.

That’s what I can see. It’s not particularly profound, and I saw some of it before I’d ever heard of non-duality.

It feels helpful and intuitively like moving in the right direction, but it doesn’t feel like an awakening or a shift. It hasn’t had much impact on my day to day life.

Or maybe it has. I feel a deep unwinding going on and some core beliefs and some thinking patterns and energies shifting. The surface might look mostly the same but the deep conditions are rearranging themselves. I can’t see the outcome of that yet. It’s also increasingly hard to get a before/after comparison of a self once it’s seen that it’s all a story.

It might be more of a hesitant “maybe” instead of a “big fat YES.” What has happened has been quite subtle.

Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

I feel like there’s definitely more and I’m wondering about directions.

I’ve watched a few of Ilona’s (is that her name??) youtube videos and she seems to address the topic of an underwhelming shift a lot. I’ve also been working through the Awakening Curriculum, which works with the fetters, and that has been GREAT. My meditation practice has been really chill - often very short, often while going for walks or bike rides, and just very very informal with no pressure to be a good meditator.
Any other suggestions for where to go next?

Any insight on what to expect to happen next, and how this goes? Obviously it’s different for everyone.

I’ve really appreciated your help. It’s a significant time commitment to guide people through this process. You’ve been wonderful and clear and patient as difficulties and resistance has come up. Thank you, genuinely and deeply.

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie
It’s been a real joy walking alongside you in this process. This whole message has the clarity already shining through it — not as a dramatic, movie-scene “shift,” but in the most natural way possible: like noticing the sky was always open, even behind the clouds. You're not trying to see anymore — you're seeing. And you're noticing the reflex to look harder when there's nothing to find.
That is the “big fat YES.”
Let’s unpack a few things:

That’s what I can see. It’s not particularly profound, and I saw some of it before I’d ever heard of non-duality.

Of course not. The illusion was never real, so its collapse won’t necessarily feel like fireworks. It’s like realizing the monster in the closet is a coat. What’s shocking is not the collapse, it’s the simplicity of it.

It feels helpful and intuitively like moving in the right direction, but it doesn’t feel like an awakening or a shift. It hasn’t had much impact on my day to day life. Or maybe it has.

Just one thing to gently notice here ...
Even the response to the shift (whether it feels "subtle" or "underwhelming") is also part of the conditioned story. The one of measuring success to that of others' and always seeing it in a diminished kind of way ;). You reported so many mini shifts. But expecting "outcomes" is where the issue is - outcomes for whom? The mind spent years preparing for something, imagining a gate, a moment, a transformation, a grand finale. And then when seeing happens simply, it can say, “Wait… was that it?” There is no one to make an appraisal and no one to benefit, so that leaves it up what? Thought?
That’s not a problem. It’s just the old machinery still running — measuring, expecting, appraising — because it doesn’t yet realize the job is done.
The “underwhelmed” voice doesn’t mean the shift didn’t happen. It just means no one is there to be wowed anymore. So can even that voice — the one saying “maybe” or “was this enough?” — be seen as another passing thought, another harmless icon on the desktop?
And can it be seen as just that? A momentary opinion, not a truth. Not a problem. Not a sign something’s missing.
In fact, the illusion tends to dissolve not in thunder, but in silence — not with shock, but with a sense of “oh… it was never there.” No fireworks. Just the end of chasing.
So when that “was this enough?” thought appears, let it float. It doesn’t need resolving. And without it — what’s already quietly, unmistakably here?
That quiet. That peace. That simplicity. That… everything.
So in the absence of believing it…
what’s already quietly here?

It's also increasingly hard to get a before/after comparison of a self once it’s seen that it’s all a story.

That’s it. No one steps out of the illusion with a certificate — just the quiet gradual ending of a search.

The contraction in the chest continues and the thoughts continue. But since they’re no longer connected, they can’t reinforce one another so they tend to subside.

That’s it. You’re not trying to get rid of them — you see their harmlessness. The “me” that had the tightness isn’t real, so the tightness is just… tightness.
It doesn’t need to be dropped — it just isn’t “yours” anymore.

Any other suggestions for where to go next?

What remains is life living — without the middleman of a manager, a fixer, a seeker.
That said, here are some directions many explore post-seeing:
Stabilizing: letting the recognition deepen, soften, and return — without chasing it.
Integration: bringing this seeing into the hard spots (relationships, fear, guilt). Not to “fix” them, but to let them dissolve into the same flow.
Exploring “others”: Are they real? What happens when the story of “you” is seen — but the story of “them” persists?
Looking at time, choice, control, awareness, etc. as they appear: untangling more threads of subtle identification.
But always gently — nothing needs force. Your meditation practice sounds perfect. And even that will drop away at some point - you don'y need to sit down to notice a silly thought as it appears

The surface might look mostly the same but the deep conditions are rearranging themselves.

That’s exactly right. There's no need to rush the unfolding. The self never really died — because it was never real. But what was real was the seeking, the efforting, the fixing… and you’re not believing those anymore. So what’s left?
Just this — already happening, already enough.

So if the thought “was this it?” appears… let it. It’s just a thought, not a sign, not a problem.
You’re clear — not in a “final destination” kind of way, but in the kind of way that leaves no one left to get anywhere. If anything feels cloudy again, that’s okay — it’s just weather. The sky remains. The clouds are seen as clouds… until even they are recognized as just the sky too.
What a beautiful unfolding this is. Let it keep unfolding — as life, as stillness, as everything.

We have some checkpoint questions… Do you want to answer them? They are shared with the other guides to check if we missed anything.
This will not necessarily be the end of our conversation. We can continue to talk when/if an obstacle presents itself or you just want to chat. I’ll be here
Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

A question keeps floating around. I can see really clearly that a contraction that I feel in my chest and the thoughts of annoyance at the sounds outside are not actually connected. This is clear.

But in reverse it starts to fall apart. I can intentionally think of something frustrating and the body responds with a contraction. So it seems like there is a connection?

But expecting "outcomes" is where the issue is - outcomes for whom?

Yeah… that’s just a story about this improving “someone.”

There is no one to make an appraisal and no one to benefit, so that leaves it up what? Thought?

It’s a very strange thing to be on a journey and then to realize you don’t exist as the destination is reached. It becomes a question of whether there was even a journey or a destination either.

So can even that voice — the one saying “maybe” or “was this enough?” — be seen as another passing thought, another harmless icon on the desktop?
And can it be seen as just that?

Yeah. It is just a thought.

And without it — what’s already quietly, unmistakably here?

Just everything unfolding, all at once.

what’s already quietly here?

Everything.

Stabilizing: letting the recognition deepen, soften, and return — without chasing it.
Integration: bringing this seeing into the hard spots (relationships, fear, guilt). Not to “fix” them, but to let them dissolve into the same flow.
Exploring “others”: Are they real? What happens when the story of “you” is seen — but the story of “them” persists?
Looking at time, choice, control, awareness, etc. as they appear: untangling more threads of subtle identification.

This list made me laugh because all of these had started, organically, on their own.

But what was real was the seeking, the efforting, the fixing… and you’re not believing those anymore. So what’s left?

Just presence. Just whatever is here.

We have some checkpoint questions… Do you want to answer them?

Yeah. I feel ready now. I think I answered them about six weeks ago or so, and even though there was seeing, there was so much doubt surrounding it. That has calmed now and there is more clarity.

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie

Yeah. I feel ready now. I think I answered them about six weeks ago or so, and even though there was seeing, there was so much doubt surrounding it. That has calmed now and there is more clarity.

Wonderful! That’s also my feeling :)
Let’s look at your question first before answering these:

But in reverse it starts to fall apart. I can intentionally think of something frustrating and the body responds with a contraction. So it seems like there is a connection?

Yes, it can seem like there's a causal connection. But if you look really closely… can you find a thinker that causes the thought? Can you find a doer who chooses which thought arises, who intends a thought? When the thought of something frustrating appears… what makes it ‘intentional’? Where’s the chooser?

Or is the thought of something frustrating just another appearance — and the contraction another — both arising in the same flow?
It’s like lightning and thunder: they appear together, connected in timing, but one doesn’t control the other. They’re both the weather. So here too — thought and sensation arise together, but is one truly causing the other? Or are both just unfolding, causelessly, in the same space?
What’s it like when the link between them isn’t assumed?

It might seem like you're intentionally calling up a frustrating memory and that this causes a contraction. But look again: could it be that the contraction — the energy of “frustration” — was already present, and the thought just matched it? Here is again that video that I shared before:
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3
Like the mind pulls up a story to explain what’s already here. So what looks like “intentionally thinking of something frustrating” might just be "frustration" (i.e. sensation) already bubbling, and thought catching up to make sense of it — a memory or image tagged as “the cause.”
The thought and the sensation arise together, but which came first? Can that even be known? And if it can’t — can it be said that one causes the other at all?
This loosens the whole chain of assumed agency: the one who “intentionally” thinks, the thought that causes feeling, the feeling that proves a self is here.
What if all of it — memory, sensation, intention — is just one seamless unfolding?

It could also be explained as a mental sensation. It’s a bit like eating real chocolate versus imagining eating chocolate. Both “create” sensations — but one is direct sensory input, and the other is a mental event, a memory.
When you remember or imagine something frustrating, is it the real deal or is it an echo, a memory?
That imagined chocolate isn’t real — and neither is the imagined cause of the contraction. Just like the chocolate, the frustration story is a kind of mental simulation. And none of it is personal. It’s just a reflex. A pattern. A little ripple passing through.
So you see there so many other plausible descriptions of what happened, and none of them is truth - they are all an approximation, a possible meaning assigned to something unknowable, indescribable :)
And without the label, without the mental chewing… what’s left?
Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

These were really thought provoking questions.

I so often find I need two days to think about your messages. When we first started messaging I was trying to respond every day. I don’t know how I managed that.

can you find a thinker that causes the thought? Can you find a doer who chooses which thought arises, who intends a thought? When the thought of something frustrating appears… what makes it ‘intentional’? Where’s the chooser?

Yes, but…

It starts with calmness, without strong sensations in the body. Then there’s a pause, and the mind looks through a series of potential things to think about, and chooses something difficult. When the difficult thing is chosen, the body tightens in response. So there might be no doer or chooser, but it seems there’s still a connection.

Or is the thought of something frustrating just another appearance — and the contraction another — both arising in the same flow?

Yes, I think so.

Maybe I’m curious where sensations come from. With thoughts, it’s clear that they are randomly pulled up based on conditioning, and sometimes triggered by the environment (including sensations). Are sensations the same?

And it still seems like there’s a bi-directional connection piece with sensation and thought. I can see that there might be a tightening in the body, and then the mind pulls up a corresponding angry thought. But I think it goes the other way too - like if there’s a work presentation I’m preparing for, and the body begins to feel a clenching in the belly and feelings of butterflies and sensations of nervousness.

It’s like lightning and thunder: they appear together, connected in timing, but one doesn’t control the other. They’re both the weather. So here too — thought and sensation arise together, but is one truly causing the other? Or are both just unfolding, causelessly, in the same space?
What’s it like when the link between them isn’t assumed?

Hmm. Interesting question.

Maybe the body and thoughts both respond to the environment, but independently? Then the mind forms a belief that they are connected, and implicitly asserts that it is in control of both thought and sensation, but in reality it’s neither?

It might seem like you're intentionally calling up a frustrating memory and that this causes a contraction. But look again: could it be that the contraction — the energy of “frustration” — was already present, and the thought just matched it?

Yeah, maybe.

What it feels like (and yes these are thoughts and concepts) is that there is a backlog of emotionally charged topics that don’t feel settled and have energy circulating in them. They’re irritating, and feel almost itchy to the mind. In times of calm, the mind selects one of them in an attempt to resolve it.

Or maybe that’s not happening, and it’s just an assumption. Maybe the mind is bored and is trying to trigger sensations. Maybe it has a resistance and discomfort to quietness and openness.

The thought and the sensation arise together, but which came first? Can that even be known? And if it can’t — can it be said that one causes the other at all?

I’m not sure that they really do arise together. I feel fairly neutral at this moment, although perhaps there are the seeds of many different feelings and sensations. If I let my mind go, thoughts come up over serious concerns about the wellbeing of a family member, and sensations of concern and helplessness (yes those are just labels) feel stronger. It seems to come after the thought.

I do think that the sensations reinforce the thought, and tend to push it to move extremes, and the thought reinforces the sensation at a certain point. Things spiral, but the initial feeling felt led by thought.

What if all of it — memory, sensation, intention — is just one seamless unfolding?

I think that could be. Maybe they’re both influenced, independently, by similar phenomena and they might be in sync, but are occasionally not?

It could also be explained as a mental sensation. It’s a bit like eating real chocolate versus imagining eating chocolate. Both “create” sensations — but one is direct sensory input, and the other is a mental event, a memory.
When you remember or imagine something frustrating, is it the real deal or is it an echo, a memory?

I like this metaphor.

I think I’m having difficulty understanding the application of this metaphor.

Just as an example, my dad was very harsh when I was growing up. There was direct experience years ago and there are memories now. Both have painful sensations.

Sometimes there’s an attempt to resolve things that feels like trying to drain the energy off of the memories. Sometimes I bring to mind (or the mind brings to mind?) an image or memory of my dad, and then I sit with the energy of the body and it sort of feels like the energy of that particular piece drains off or unwinds.

That seems again like a connection between thought and sensation, but maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s just another imagined connection from the mind.

I think I’m having difficulty understanding what to do with memories. I understand that not mentally chewing on them would be preferable and I don’t tend to think too much about them anymore, but little things pop into mind all the time. It’s not currently happening, but it still carries weight.

And without the label, without the mental chewing… what’s left?

I think just energy unwinding.

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie,
It seems like the mind is still trying to tease out the parts — thoughts/memories here, sensations there — and then figure out how they interact. Like: “Did thought cause sensation? Or did sensation cause the thought?” Chicken or egg. Can thoughts DO anything, can sensations DO? Are they separate agents? Cause and effect is a story. Thoughts separate THIS into parts and then look for interactions…
But what if there are no separate parts? No “thought,” no “sensation,” no “emotion,” no “memory” — just labels that divide what’s already whole (the wax in the lava lamp)?

I don’t think you grasped the whole analogy with "eating chocolate vs imagining one" (real sensations vs mental ones), so let’s do the exercise properly so it is not just a mental exercise… I hope you like chocolate :)

For the first couple of minutes imagine you are eating a piece chocolate…feel the sensations of it melting into your mouth, the taste, the texture, the aroma. Really enjoy the imaginary piece of chocolate as much as you can.
Then for the next couple of minutes actually have a piece of chocolate and see the difference. Experience the chocolate with curiosity and observe the sensations. Really enjoy it.
Then for another minute or so describe the experience in as much detail as possible.
Write the description here. What was the experience like?

After you have done this, tell me what you noticed when you compared these three experiences:
1. Imaginary piece of chocolate
2. Real piece of chocolate
3. Description of eating the real piece of chocolate

Was there any differences between the three? What were they?

What did you notice with the imaginary chocolate? How about the sensations that were so believable? There were probably real sensations — maybe a taste and saliva in the mouth, a little “tension or warmth”, maybe even a craving. But was there actual chocolate? Of course not. Just a mental event - no “chocolate,” just this. Thoughts, sensations, feelings — arising together, inseparable.

Was there ever a chocolate in ‘reality’?
Was the content of the mental image (the melon) ‘real’?
The thoughts and mental images are real only as DE of thoughts and mental images, their appearance cannot be denied. However their ‘contents’, what they are about (like the chocolate) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Now imagine the same thing with a frustrating or painful memory. A moment appears — maybe an image, a phrase, a feeling — and with it, a wave of sensation: "tightness, pressure, heat".
But look closer. Is it a memory causing sensation? Or are they just one appearance? Where is the proof that there are two and that one causes the other – do you actually see the one pulling/dragging the other, or that is an assumption?
And is that appearance really a “memory,” or is that label simply pasted on top afterward? Couldn’t the same energy — the same sensation — be called something entirely different, depending on context? “Stress,” “sadness,” “tension,” “urgency,” “grief,” “frustration”… even “awakening,” in the right story.
It’s not about cause and effect. It’s about seeing how the labels divide what is actually undivided.
Before “thought,” “memory,” or “emotion”… there’s just this: a movement of aliveness. No parts. No cause. No effect. No self. And nothing real to be fixed

The example with your dad is so clear and touching. But you’re not chewing on stories anymore. Yes, little “echoes” still rise in shape of thoughts. And that’s okay. Those echoes don’t need fixing, either. They don’t need to be resolved. They just want to be felt and the old label (e.g. painful emotions) dis-attached.
And you’re doing that. You’re meeting the energy instead of feeding the story. You’re sitting with it. Letting it be what it is. That’s not “processing” — that’s clarity. That’s freedom to experience all.
And about memories — here’s something to play with:
Is a memory happening now? How is it known that they talk about something that has happened in the past? Where is the proof for that if all you can experience is NOW? Can you experience 5 min ago?
Is it the past, or is it a thought appearing in the present?
Can it be held, touched, measured? Or is it just another icon on the desktop — not the real chocolate?
There’s no problem with memories. They just need to be seen as what they are - empty story anout "others", "emotions", "actions" etc. And you asked what to do with them...
Nothing. Truly. No need to track or unwind or figure out where they came from. Just feel what’s here when they arise — the “contraction, the warmth, the heat, the pressure” (still labels) — whatever shows up. Not to fix it… just to let it move. You’re not carrying the past, you’re just experiencing NOW.
Keep gently noticing how thought wants to label and explain. That’s okay. Just don’t take it too seriously. It’s not the truth, it’s just a tour guide (the commentator) trying to make meaning out of what never needed meaning.
And underneath the memory, underneath the sensation, underneath even the impulse to understand — what’s already quietly here? You know the answer - just this, stillness, flow, aliveness. Nothing to improve, just this being.
Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

Whew! Another batch of really thought provoking questions.

Can thoughts DO anything, can sensations DO? Are they separate agents?

Hmm. Maybe they are the same, like different angles or pieces of the present moment as it manifests.

And in regard to the question can thoughts DO anything - that was my question. It seems like they can trigger feelings. But maybe they don’t actually have agency in this. Maybe they’re just arising, with the feeling connected to it in part of the same substance.

But what if there are no separate parts? No “thought,” no “sensation,” no “emotion,” no “memory” — just labels that divide what’s already whole (the wax in the lava lamp)?

Yeah, okay, I think that makes sense.

What was the experience like?

The smell is really lovely and satisfying. I put it in my mouth and i can feel the edges softening and melting. It’s a dark chocolate, and really quite bitter. It softens over the course of a couple of minutes. It’s got a bit of a dry flavour to it, not sweet at all. It becomes a syrup in my mouth and is really rich with flavor.

1. Imaginary piece of chocolate
2. Real piece of chocolate
3. Description of eating the real piece of chocolate

Slightly frustrating. It was thought based and not a direct experience. I could bring to mind a sense of what I should taste, and then would be disappointed that the taste wasn’t actually present and what was actually happening in my mouth wasn’t chocolate.

Really satisfying. A very sense based experience. There was a lot to explore here and it kept opening up to me, more and more, until it was all gone.

Not nearly as good as eating it.

Was there any differences between the three? What were they?

This was actually kind of enlightening. (Pun not intended). I feel like I’ve had such similar experiences with my nervous system and emotions, but since it’s not a tangible thing I can see and touch, I struggle to tell the difference between a real and imaginary release.

Sometimes a memory or feeling arises and it’s right there, like the real chocolate. It can be sat with and it unwinds. But there’s a sneaky bit of identification that says “I did that, and I can do it again, and get the benefit again.” So it thinks of a similar thing and attempts to recreate it, but it’s an empty, frustrating experience, like the imaginary chocolate.

So the differences were the first and the third one sucked, and the second one didn’t. There was a strong illusion of control in the first one as well - “I” could imagine in as much detail as I could, and the better I imagined, the better the experience would be. So while there isn’t a doer, it was a place where you could easily imagine a doer. But in the second one, it was very much a letting. When relaxed, the chocolate would open up and that experience was much deeper and fuller.

The third one was just a pale attempt at imitating the second, but was very thought based.

What did you notice with the imaginary chocolate? How about the sensations that were so believable?

The imaginary chocolate was a little frustrating. There were sensations in the mouth and thoughts, but it was very limited.

Was there ever a chocolate in ‘reality’?
Was the content of the mental image (the melon) ‘real’?

Nope.

The thoughts and mental images are real only as DE of thoughts and mental images, their appearance cannot be denied. However their ‘contents’, what they are about (like the chocolate) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Yeah. Thoughts are happening and that’s fine. The content is just in the mind; it’s not reality.

Is it a memory causing sensation? Or are they just one appearance? Where is the proof that there are two and that one causes the other – do you actually see the one pulling/dragging the other, or that is an assumption?

I think that might be an assumption. I think I got overly interested in separating out thought and sensation, and leaning into sensation and rejecting thoughts. But they can and do appear together and are often different sides of the same thing.

But maybe that’s an assumption too?

And is that appearance really a “memory,” or is that label simply pasted on top afterward? Couldn’t the same energy — the same sensation — be called something entirely different, depending on context?

I’ve heard others say that when there’s a sensation in the body, the mind tries to explain it and comes up with a thought or a memory or a reason and says “this is why!” and we blindly believe.

So for example, if you’re coming down with the flu but haven’t realized it yet, the mind might say you’re really nervous about going out later and then make up a story about that. Although maybe, for the sake of clarity, we should call this an “interpretation” and not a “thought”... Maybe thoughts are what arise out of nowhere randomly, and interpretations might be what is solving the problem of explaining sensory data that’s not yet understood. Interpreting sensory data from the body is a way of identifying and grabbing on. It’s a sneaky way of claiming to understand and be in control.

Is a memory happening now? How is it known that they talk about something that has happened in the past? Where is the proof for that if all you can experience is NOW? Can you experience 5 min ago?
Is it the past, or is it a thought appearing in the present?
Can it be held, touched, measured? Or is it just another icon on the desktop — not the real chocolate?

I think memories might be assumptions. They’re beliefs about what happened or the way things were. There is no proof. We can’t go back and check. Memories happen in the present and they are complete imagination.

what’s already quietly here?

The aftertaste of chocolate, a glow from a computer screen, a tickle in the throat, a warm sweater.

[poppyseed]

Hi Lanie,
Loved reading this, especially the clarity in your chocolate reflections. The comparison between the directness of the second experience and the effortful, thought-based frustration of the first and third is such a clear pointer. You’re really seeing the difference between what is here and the interpretation of what’s here, and how much of the suffering is layered into the interpretation.
And yes, as you said, even the idea of memory or “something from the past” is a label. Something appears (an image, a feeling, a thought), and mind says: “That was five years ago. That’s about that time.” But where is that time now? And what makes that appearance a “memory,” rather than just another thought/description/interpreation/assigning meaning/label/fairy tale?
All these parts — thoughts, sensations, emotions, memories — seem separate when named, but can you find an actual line / wall / boundary that divides the thought, the sensation, the sound, the colour, the smell, the taste? Or is the line a mental construct?
You mentioned that you may have gotten a bit too interested in separating thought and sensation, leaning into one, rejecting the other. But even that — the preference — is just another thought. Can you let all of it be here? The chocolate taste, the imaginary chocolate, the thoughts trying to categorize it, the frustration, the relief — all appearing as this. No separation, no problem.
There’s no issue with thoughts. The problem only arises when thought starts reporting on itself endlessly — thoughts about thoughts about thoughts (e.g. “analysis of what causes what”), when it spirals. But when a thought appears like:

“Warm sweater” or “tickle in the throat”

and it simply lands, with no grasping, it’s just part of the flow. No thinker needed and no separation.
You’re not being asked to stop thinking. You’re just being shown how to see through it — to taste the chocolate of this moment, without mistaking the label for the flavour.
So just one quiet question to sit with:
If you didn’t call it “thought”… what’s actually here?
What remains, when even that label is dropped?
Let it keep unfolding, gently.

You’re doing beautifully.
Let it keep unfolding, gently.
Love
Rali

[LanieRO]

Hi Rali,

I noticed another subtle shift. The story, the things happening to me can’t happen without me and aren’t separate from me. I’m part of the thing that is happening. It wouldn’t be happening without me. I am in the events, the happenings, and the unfolding, and the reactions to all of these things, and can’t be anywhere else. Nothing is happening TO me; that’s just impossible.

I think there was a subtle shift in subject/object - those don’t feel very separate anymore, although that’s a lens I can use anytime.

It’s a lot more subtle than I would have imagined. If I weren’t actively looking into the nature of this type of phenomena, I don’t think I would have noticed it. Which… weird. Language is structured around subjects and objects, presumably because cognition is structured around subjects and objects… I would have anticipated this loosening would feel weirder.

But where is that time now? And what makes that appearance a “memory,” rather than just another thought/description/interpretation/assigning meaning/label/fairy tale?

Memory is a label for a thought.

can you find an actual line / wall / boundary that divides the thought, the sensation, the sound, the colour, the smell, the taste? Or is the line a mental construct?

Mental construct.

Can you let all of it be here?

Yeah. Everything is just flowing together. The wax in the lava lamp feels a bit more of a potent metaphor. Initially I thought of the wax as thought + sensation, but that seems limited. The lava lamp contains everything.

If you didn’t call it “thought”… what’s actually here?
What remains, when even that label is dropped?

Just wax in the lava lamp.

[poppyseed]

Beautiful, Lanie.
That subtle shift you’re describing — the dissolving of subject and object, the falling away of the sense that life is happening to someone — that’s not a small thing. It’s not flashy, but it’s fundamental. Like mist lifting, without drama.
And yes, if you weren’t looking this way (having various expectations), it might be missed entirely. But here you are: seeing.
You said it perfectly:

I am in the events, the happenings, and the unfolding, and the reactions to all of these things, and can’t be anywhere else.

Exactly. There’s no “you” apart from experience — no watcher, no narrator, no “me” on the side lines. Just… this - seamless, undivided.
And the lava lamp metaphor? It keeps deepening, doesn’t it? At first, we imagine wax vs. water. Then wax as thoughts and sensations. And now — wax as everything. No separate ingredients.
Just thoughtsensationcoloursoundtastesmell — no borders, no parts.
So here’s a gentle question to sit with:
If there’s no subject and no object, no watcher and no watched, no thinker and no thought…
What’s actually happening?
Let it keep unfolding.
So happy how this is going
Love
Rali