My journey to clarity

[poppyseed]

Hi Kate,
This is such powerful looking. You’re not missing anything — in fact, you’re meeting the exact place where it all tries to turn back into a seeker, a self, a someone. And you’re staying with it.
Let’s bring some relief:

There is no way to differentiate without thought and yet somehow I’m not sure how to know if it’s a seamless field.

Exactly. And there never was. The illusion wasn’t that “things seemed separate” — it was that there was someone trying to unify them. But even the thought “this should feel seamless” is just more commentary.
You saw that beautifully:

“That isn’t clear” is also just a thought, and seeing that, things are more clear.

That’s it. Nothing needs to be made seamless. Just drop the belief that say it was ever divided.
Not that there is even a dropper of beliefs. There’s just the thought "this is divided.” And in the next moment — another thought: “I must drop this thought.”
It’s all just arising. Spontaneous. Unowned. Thought commenting on thought, endlessly.
So don't try to drop anything. Just look and see: is the division actually there, or is it only being said in thought?
There’s just the noticing: “Oh… it’s just another thought.”
And even that — is a thought.
Let it all burn.
What’s left?
Not as an answer. But right now, in raw experience.
Is anything divided?
Is anyone looking?

LOOK in DE! What is there – there are seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking. Whatever is not in the first 5 is thinking content. Thought describes the experience but at some point becomes organised around itself. Thoughts are self organising. They stick to each other like matching puzzle pieces (stories about stories). Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. One very good example of how words and language are just pointers to but not the actual DE, and how meaning is formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI (a language processing) have any direct experience of what it’s talking about?

I see that the label “seamless field” is also just thought.

Perfect. Every word, every insight, every pointer — is just more thought unless it’s seen and dropped.
And you’re doing exactly that. Again and again.

A thought says I don’t want to discover that there is only the senses and thought and nothing more.

Yes. That’s the last fear. Not fear of dying — but fear that there never was anyone here at all. That all the meaning, the journey, the importance — was just a story in the mind. Fear has a purpose to protect the imaginary self from harm. But have a look - what is this fear really protecting? And is this protection necessary?
Let it be terrifying if it is. Let the system flare up. Let the contraction burn.
And just ask:
Is anything actually happening other than sensation and thought?

I feel stuck.

I don’t know where or how to look

I don’t have it in me today to keep this up.

Yes — and look what you’re doing: not turning away. You’re reporting it raw. No filter. No polish.
This is the unwinding. It’s not clean. It’s not bliss. It’s this: the seeker collapsing on its own words. The narrative losing power, not because it’s wrong — but because it’s seen for what it is.
Just more thought.

Let’s take the sharpest point now:
Who/what is left to awaken?
Is there anything — sensation, sound, colour — that says “I”?
Is there any observer, watcher, knower — apart from the thought about one? The one that supposedly doesn’t do it properly?
Right now:
Where exactly is the one “having” the experience?
If you drop the thought “I am experiencing this” — what’s left?
This isn’t theoretical. It’s immediate. LOOK!
Sensation. Sound. Colour. Thought. Nothing else.

And this thought?

I don’t have it in me to keep this up.

You don’t need to.
Because there is no you doing it.
There never was. Just looking. Just happening.
Let yourself rest there.
More soon — and you’re right where you need to be.

Love
Rali

[KatCat]

“Is anything divided?
Is anyone looking?
LOOK in DE! What is there – there are seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking. Whatever is not in the first 5 is thinking content.”

When I look here, a flood of thoughts comes in the form of mental images and overlays over the sensation, sight and sound. A thought says it feels hard to differentiate the mental images and labels from the direct experience. There is colour with labels (books, shelf, plant), sound with labels (stomach gurgling, fingers typing), sensation with labels (legs crossed under me, soft blanket on my arms, discomfort in the neck), taste with labels (bitterness, cacao, garlic), smell with labels (dog smell). And other kinds of thoughts saying stuff like (“This is frustrating”, “I know the theory, but I can’t see it” and “I can’t find anyone in direct experience, but the thought of someone being here is still convincing”). A thought of an attempt to relax the seeking. A thought that says I know I’m believing the thought that there is someone here doing something, but I don’t know how to stop believing it.

“Who/what is left to awaken?
Is there anything — sensation, sound, colour — that says “I”?”

No, but a thought says that it still feels like something is receiving the information of sensation, sound and colour. How is this happening???

Is there any observer, watcher, knower — apart from the thought about one? The one that supposedly doesn’t do it properly?
Right now:
Where exactly is the one “having” the experience?

There is sensation in the forehead, fingers, chest, mouth, breath, and a thought about the one who is trying to find itself.

If you drop the thought “I am experiencing this” — what’s left?

Colour, sound, sensation.

[poppyseed]

Hi Kate
You're seeing the machinery now, Kate — and it’s brilliant.

I can’t find anyone in direct experience, but the thought of someone being here is still convincing.

Yes — and that’s the loop. Thought appears, claims there's a someone here experiencing this, and then another thought says, “Yes, that feels true.” And yet another thought says, “I can’t find anyone in direct experience”. That whole structure is the illusion.
Let’s stop negotiating with it. Looking at thought content for truth is pointless – nothing real can be found there. Let’s look directly:

It feels like something is receiving the information of sensation, sound and colour. How is this happening???

Feels like?
Right now, where is that something?
Not the thought about it. Not the feeling of “someone in here.”
Where’s the thing receiving anything?
Look. Directly. Stay with the actual: Colour. Sound. Sensation. Does that something have any describable qualities?
Is there anything else but the senses? Do you see an actual border that the senses cross to be received?
Or is “something receiving this” just another thought — appearing within what’s already happening?
Who is reporting all the thought content?
Not what’s being said, but where is it being said from?
Look. Strip away every thought, every label, every image — all of it is being noticed. Noticed by what?
Is there anything there doing the noticing? Can it be found? Where is the observer ? Is it anything other than a thought about one? What is noticing in DE and the "wrong" thoughts?
Look again, clearly:
Is there a quiet observer watching thoughts — or just thoughts, claiming to be watched?
There is no observer. Only the thought of one.
Check again — not for the answer. For the absence.
Who is saying: “I know I’m believing the thought…”?
If “I” is just another thought — what’s left behind when it falls silent?
Is there anyone here to stop believing?
Or is believing itself just another appearance? Thoughts self-organising between old and new concepts/perceptions…
Sink into this.
Say nothing. Find nothing. Let it unravel.

You said:

If you drop the thought “I am experiencing this” — what’s left?

Colour, sound, sensation.

YES. That’s it. Right there: colour, sound, sensation. Nothing added. No one behind it. Just this — raw, unclaimed.
Now look again:
Can this be owned?
Is anyone here to own it?
Look closely:
Where exactly is the one who “wants to stop believing”?
Don’t answer with more thoughts.
Just stay with what’s undeniable.

Keep going — you’re not on the edge. You’re already over it.
Love
Rali

[KatCat]

Hi Rali,

I sat with this this morning but did not write an answer yet. Will write tomorrow morning.

:)

[poppyseed]

Sure Kate, take your time - no rush! Tomorrow, let’s see what’s still left of the one who was looking.
Thank you for staying so honest and raw in this.
Love
Rali

[KatCat]

Hi Rali,

I had an MDMA session yesterday,m and was too exhausted to write.

Here you go:

I said "It feels like something is receiving the information of sensation, sound and colour. How is this happening???"
and you said:

Right now, where is that something?
Not the thought about it. Not the feeling of “someone in here.”
Where’s the thing receiving anything?

Something here doesn’t want to let go of the belief that I don’t get it. That I’m not seeing it. That I don’t know how to step out of thought. I know this is a thought as well, in theory, but it’s still completely convincing. How can I drop this belief, or see it clearly enough to stop believing it?

Look. Directly. Stay with the actual: Colour. Sound. Sensation. Does that something have any describable qualities?

No, it doesn’t.

Is there anything else but the senses? Do you see an actual border that the senses cross to be received?

There are the senses and thought. I don’t see an actual border, and yet the thought that there is an “in here” and an “out there”, a “this” and a “that” is still convincing. I’m trying to find where that is coming from, and it seems to be coming from the combination of a body sense and mental image of the body. A blending of the sensations of the face, body, movement and a mental image of that, plus an idea that says “me”. The mental image of the body is still pretty stuck to the sensations. There is a thought that says I need more practice with recognising the metal images and allowing them to unstick from the sensations before I will see this clearly.

Who is reporting all the thought content?
Not what’s being said, but where is it being said from?

I don’t know.

Look. Strip away every thought, every label, every image — all of it is being noticed. Noticed by what?

I don’t know where to look. There is no way to answer this.

Is there anything there doing the noticing? Can it be found? Where is the observer ? Is it anything other than a thought about one? What is noticing in DE and the "wrong" thoughts?

There is a strong sense of a “me trying to figure this out”. In direct experience (colour, sound sensation), the observer can’t be found. There is a labelling: “thought, colour, sound, sensation”, as if those labels were needed in order to place attention there. There is so much buy-in to these thoughts, even though I know in theory they are just thoughts! I am not seeing them clearly enough to drop them. So much frustration - sensation of contraction plus thought saying I don't get this.

Who is saying: “I know I’m believing the thought…”?

A thought is saying it. But how is it being believed?

It is the weekend - I know we have a big time difference, but if there is a moment we could do this in real time that would be interesting to try! I'm in Eastern Daylight Time in the New York, Toronto, Montreal time zone.

Thanks for your infinite patience with me :)

[KatCat]

We have 7 hours difference, I think. :)

[poppyseed]

Hi Kate,
This is deeply honest. You’re right at the edge — and I’m going to meet you there.

Something here doesn’t want to let go of the belief that I don’t get it.

Good. That’s the real belief — not separation, not a self — but that you’re not getting it.
And what is that? A thought. Just another thought.
A thought that says “this thought is different — this one is truer.” What makes it “truer” is the fact that it hasn’t been checked vs DE

There is a thought that says I need more practice with recognising the metal images and allowing them to unstick from the sensations before I will see this clearly.

A good exercise is the breaking down of daily activities with DE labels – the cup of coffee example. It creates the habit of looking - distinguishing conditioned descriptions from DE, dis-attaching the old story from the DE and allowing new perceptions/descriptions to be formed. Please include a few lines with each of your replies
So on one side you have what thought says is happening, and on the other side is what is really there. For example :

Washing dishes
Seeing the soap on the dish, simply = colour/seeing
Feeling the warm water on you hands, simply = sensation/feeling
Hearing the plates banging on each other, simply = sound/hearing
Drying the plates with a towel, simply = sensation/feeling
Thinking of what to do next after that, simply = thought/thinking

I don’t see an actual border, and yet the thought that there is an “in here” and an “out there”, a “this” and a “that” is still convincing.

That’s the thing … Thought, as you have seen, does not require a thinker – it just appears. It is very much self-organised. Thoughts stick to each other like matching puzzle pieces (stories about stories). Anything new that comes along and does not match the pattern will be attempted to get rid of as it costs the system “energy” to rebuild it from scratch. So the appearance of these old thoughts is a habit saving time. When you have two opposing views (i.e. view of reality) you have to keep checking their validity. What we are used to do is to check if a new idea fits with the rest of our beliefs and disregard it if it doesn’t (confirmation bias). This method saves energy so it was used for a really long time. Thought filters sensory input through a lens that’s been fogged up by other people’s thoughts, societal conditioning, and outdated knowledge - all built in a nice neat pyramide of "knowledge" of what reality is. It’s like wearing sunglasses in the mist. You think you see reality, but what you’re perceiving is just a filtered version of it—biased and clouded by what you’ve been taught to think. All this knowledge that claims to “know” what’s happening is just pre-packaged bullshit. Your senses are pure, but the mind’s interpretation? It’s a recycled narrative.
Now we’ve added a second method for dealing with opposing concepts – to check with our senses which one truly describes what is happening. The “stubbornness” of these old perceptions comes from that confirmation bias as you have not just one thought but a system of thoughts forming your view/belief system of reality. So to “reduce the resistance’ you need to painstakingly examine all thoughts one by one as they appear in order for thoughts to self-organise and form a new core of beliefs, to which new puzzle pieces will fit. And I underlie self-organise as this is not in your control, it just happens. I’ve basically introduced a virus thought (LOOK!) that causes all thoughts to reorganise around DE. The more looking, the less resistance, as the new core is formed.

So when a thought claims that that “there is a in here”, don just take it as truth and for granted. Check - where exactly is this "in here"? Point to it. What are you pointing to? Colour? Sensation? Does a colour have an inside? Relearn how to trust your senses not your thought. Just because thought says something does not make it true. In fact distrust all your thoughts. make a habit of checking what is really here instead.

Let’s go slow and clean:

I don’t know where to look. There is no way to answer this.

Perfect. Don’t. That’s the freedom.
There isn’t a place to look, and there isn’t anyone doing the looking. That thought — “I don’t know where to look” — is the veil.
There is a difference between shifting and not finding a self. Not finding something doesn’t prove that it doesn’t exist. You simply couldn’t find it. In the shift, it is positively seen that there is no self.
So it boils down to expectations… Maybe ask yourself what is missing. What is not there now that you expected to be there? Or what is there that you expected to be gone? Many people expect to stay in an altered state forever or see 24/7. This is never the case.

Looking is the most natural and easy thing. Take your time to relax and simply notice what is happening in the present: sensations, muscle tension, feelings, subtle eye movements, sounds, smells. This sort of noticing is effortless; attention moves and focuses on different perceptions, different information coming in. Thoughts rush in to label what is being noticed. No special state is required; it’s everyday ordinary business. You say that you are trying really hard and still cannot see. Ironically, trying to see is imagining or presupposing that you do not see— the opposite of looking at what is here already, right now. Of course, you already see what is here now. No effort is required: what you see is undeniable. This action is plain, simple, and ordinary. Look around.
Notice sensations in the hands and feet, light, and sounds; just listen, feel. Soften, allow, indulge. Let all of this be okay for a minute and a half. Whatever this is. Just sit with it, allowing all that comes up to be here. Notice sensations of being, vibration, aliveness. Are you “doing” being or is being “on” by default?
Feel the sensations and see how the mind attempts to describe all that it focuses on. Notice the sensation in the left foot. There is a sensation, plus thoughts about it and a mental image. Is there a feeler of sensation? See how the mind names it. The action of labelling creates a sense of solidity and identity. But what is underneath the concepts? A raw sensation, a flow of perceiving. Be with the flow and watch what is happening. This is what is, in all its glorious simplicity.
Can you see a difference between looking/noticing and thinking? What is the main difference?
Thoughts don't have to drop. It's enough just to see that they are empty - that nothing they talk about is real. I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

There is a strong sense of a “me trying to figure this out”.

Yes — and that’s the final illusion. It’s not the thoughts, or even the observer idea. It’s the thought that there’s someone trying to solve it, figure it out. That’s the mind’s habit to figure out in order to design better strategies, plans for the future, etc. But can this be figured out? Whatever theory you come up with it will not be it. You don’t need to, it just needs to settle in gently with a recognition of what is real and what is not.

And you said it clearly:

In direct experience (colour, sound, sensation), the observer can’t be found.

So don’t look for clarity — look for the one that’s unclear.
Where is the one not seeing it?
Right now — is there anything other than this? Colour. Sound . Sensation. Thought (that says “I’m missing something”)
And still… no knower. No witness. No center. Just the story of one.
Is that "I" anything more than a noun in a sentense?

How is it being believed?

YES. Sit here. This is the question. There’s no believer — just believing.
No doubter — just doubt.
No seeker — just seeking.
Belief is just thought that isn’t seen as a thought yet.
Once it’s seen as just thought — it’s not believed. It’s empty.
You don’t need to “stop believing.”
You just need to see that the believer never existed.

Is it possible this is already the seeing, but it doesn’t match the thought-image of what “seeing” is supposed to feel like?
You’ve already answered that too:

Even 'I know I’m believing the thought' is just a thought.

Then tell me:
Who is believing?
What is believing made from?
Or is belief just thought speaking to itself?

It is the weekend - I know we have a big time difference, but if there is a moment we could do this in real time that would be interesting to try!

Face-to-face often brings a subtle pressure — the need to agree, perform, appear “getting it.” That’s seeker identity survival, disguised as politeness or connection. What you need is the unfiltered, undeniable friction of direct looking. No social self to protect. No subtle collusion.
Frustration isn’t a barrier — it’s the cracking. When the self can't figure it out, can't win, can't escape — that’s where it dies.

You’re holding the fire. Keep going just like this.
Love
Rali

[KatCat]

“Maybe ask yourself what is missing. What is not there now that you expected to be there? Or what is there that you expected to be gone?”

I expect doubt to be gone, simply = thought, thinking.
I expect there to be no more buy-in to thought, simply = thought, thinking.
I expect an “aha!” moment to happen - not necessarily fireworks, but a clear feeling of recognition, simply = thought, thinking.
I see that having an expectation is simply projecting into the future with thought, taking me away from what is actually here now, simply = thought, thinking.
Fingers typing, simply = sensation, feeling.
Body map image of someone typing, simply = thought, thinking.
Seeing the computer screen, simply = colour, seeing.
Hearing my mother talking in the other room, simply = sound, hearing.
Tension in the neck, simply = sensation, feeling.
Seeing hands typing on the laptop, simply = colour, seeing.
Hearing the keys as typing happens, simply = sound, hearing.

Are you “doing” being or is being “on” by default?

It’s just on by default.
There is a vibrating aliveness in the body, simply = sensation, feeling.
Seeing the chair and table across the room, simply = colour, seeing.
The sound of the snow dripping off the roof, simply = sound, hearing.
The taste of cacao on my tongue, simply = taste, tasting.
The thought “I am sitting on the couch doing my LU practice”, simply = thought, thinking.

Is there a feeler of sensation? See how the mind names it. The action of labelling creates a sense of solidity and identity. But what is underneath the concepts? A raw sensation, a flow of perceiving. Be with the flow and watch what is happening. This is what is, in all its glorious simplicity.

There is a thought saying “this is easier to do when I relax my focus”, simply = thought, thinking.
Feeling the whole thing rather than focusing on specific parts or specific sensations, sensation is more fluid, unnameable, more direct.

Can you see a difference between looking/noticing and thinking? What is the main difference?

Thinking is labels and mental images. Looking or noticing just happens as awareness moves from one thing to another. The labels come very quickly, though, simply = thought, thinking.

Where is the one not seeing it?

In thought. It is a body-map image plus a thought saying “I am not seeing it”, simply, thinking.

Right now — is there anything other than this? Colour. Sound. Sensation. Thought (that says “I’m missing something”)

Also, taste and smell. There is nothing else.

Is it possible this is already the seeing, but it doesn’t match the thought-image of what “seeing” is supposed to feel like?

Quite possible.

Who is believing?
What is believing made from?
Or is belief just thought speaking to itself?

There is some contraction, simply = sensation, feeling.
Some breath holding, simply = sensation, feeling.
A thought saying “I am frustrated”, simply = thought, thinking.
A thought saying “I know the answer but I don’t see it clearly”, simply = thought, thinking.
Fingers on the keyboard, simply = sensation, feeling.
Computer screen and keyboard, simply = colour, seeing.
The dog sighing, simply = sound, hearing.
An urge to pee, simply = sensation, feeling, plus a thought that says “I need to pee”, simply = thought, thinking.

[poppyseed]

Hey Kate
You're already seeing it.
Everything you wrote — every expectation, every frustration, every label, every “I should be seeing” — you stripped it clean, line by line. All of it: simply = thought, thinking.
And that final piece — the urge to pee — nails it. Even that gets wrapped in thought. “I need to pee” isn’t the urge. It’s a comment about the urge. Life flows — and then thought catches up and says, “I did that.”
Thought just speaks to itself. That's what "belief" is — thought “believing” another thought. No believer. No knower. No center.
Just thought (self-organising). Sensation. Sound. Colour.
So tell me now, honestly:
Where is Kate?
Not the thought of her. Not the body map. Right now, in raw experience — can “Kate” be found?
Or is she only ever a label — thought, thinking?
Don't answer conceptually. Look. Report only what’s here.
This is the last breath of the illusion. Let it go.

I expect doubt to be gone, simply = thought, thinking.
I expect there to be no more buy-in to thought, simply = thought, thinking.
I expect an “aha!” moment to happen - not necessarily fireworks, but a clear feeling of recognition, simply = thought, thinking.

That’s the seeker’s long game. But look…Can all thoughts drop and reshape automatically just because the ‘I’ was seen as part of language/label? That will involve a thinker/ the one who saw the illusion/the mastermind that could make this happen, and you’ve seen already it cannot be found. All labels/stories need to be seen individually for them to be changed – to be seen in a new light. That is what self-organising is about.

Furthermore, the “aha!” — the felt moment of clarity — is the last trick.
Because what would it confirm? That you saw it? That something changed? That there’s now a “you who knows”?
That expectation is still seeking a self to own the seeing. It's still hinging on a future moment when “Kate gets it.” But look again — right now:
Is there anything missing? Is colour missing? Is sound missing? Is sensation missing?
Where is the gap? What needs to happen for this to be complete?
That thought — “a recognition should happen” — is just more thought, as you said.
Seeing that is the recognition.
So — if there is no one to “get it,” and no future where “it clicks” —
what’s here now that could possibly be clearer?
Don’t answer.
Look.
Love
Rali

[KatCat]

Where is Kate?
Not the thought of her. Not the body map. Right now, in raw experience — can “Kate” be found?
Or is she only ever a label — thought, thinking?

There is a slight constriction in the solar plexus, simply = sensation, feeling
Hands on the computer keyboard and the computer screen, simply - colour, seeing
Water dripping from the eaves, simply = sound, hearing
Eyes blinking, simply = sensation, feeling
Tension in the mouth area, simply = sensation, feeling
Petting the dog, simply = sensation, feeling
Nostrils flaring, simply = sensation, feeling
The dog whining, simply = sound, hearing
A thought saying I love this dog, simply = thought, thinking
Tension in the eyebrows, simply = sensation, feeling
A thought saying “I need to get to work”, simply = thought, thinking
A slight contraction in the throat and chest, simply = sensation, feeling
A heavy feeling in the head, simply = sensation, feeling
A thought that says “I’m tired”, simply = thought, thinking
Feeling the back on a cushion, simply = sensation, feeling
Pain in the knee, simply = sensation, feeling
A thought saying “my knee”, simply = thought, thinking.
Breathing, simply = sensation, feeling
The sound of the breath, simply = sound, hearing
A thought that says “I am breathing”, simply = thought, thinking
A thought that says “breathing feels good”, simply - thought, thinking
Hair and glasses are seen, simply = colour, seeing
A thought that says “my hair and my glasses”, simply = thought, thinking.

Is there anything missing? Is colour missing? Is sound missing? Is sensation missing?
Where is the gap? What needs to happen for this to be complete?

A thought says “I don’t know where to go from here”, simply = thought, thinking
A feeling of a burp coming up, simply = sensation, feeling
A feeling of contraction in the solar plexus, simply = sensation, feeling
A thought that says “I am here”, simply = thought, thinking
The sound of rain, simply = sound, hearing
The sound of fingers typing, simply = sound, hearing
An itch on the nose, simply = sensation, feeling
A thought that says “my nose is itchy”, simply = thought, thinking
Scratching the shoulder, simply = sensation, feeling
Seeing the computer screen and the pillow, simply = colour, seeing
Socks on the bed, simply = colour, seeing
A thought that says “my socks”, simply = thought, thinking
Glasses on the face, simply = colour, seeing
Glasses sliding down the nose, simply = sensation, feeling
A thought that says “my glasses are sliding down”, simply - thought, thinking

That thought — “a recognition should happen” — is just more thought, as you said.
Seeing that is the recognition.
So — if there is no one to “get it,” and no future where “it clicks” —
what’s here now that could possibly be clearer?

A thought says “I should be there already”, simply = thought, thinking.
A thought says “Rali is going to give up on me because I’m hopeless”, simply = thought, thinking
A contraction in the chest and solar plexus, simply = sensation, feeling
Pressure and heat in the eyes, simply = sensation, feeling
A thought that says “I’m so frustrated”, simply = thought, thinking
The sound of rain, simply = sound, hearing
The sensation of cool air on the arms, simply = sensation, feeling
A thought that says “I don’t know if I’m doing this right”, simply = thought, thinking
A sensation of eyes squinting, simply = sensation, feeling

[poppyseed]

Hi Kate
Yes!!! Kate cannot be found. Not because you're failing — but because she was never there.
Every single line you just wrote is the truth of it:

A thought that says “I am here”, simply = thought, thinking.
A thought that says “Rali is going to give up on me”, simply = thought, thinking.
A thought that says “I’m so frustrated”, simply = thought, thinking.

Over and over — thought offers another version of “Kate” to believe in.
You don’t believe them all… and yet the pattern keeps playing.
So now, stay right here:
What is left that could possibly be identified as a self?
Forget the label “Kate.” Forget “I,” “me,” “mine.” Right now…Sound. Colour. Sensation. Thought.
Where’s the owner?
Not the thought of one. Not the feeling of one. In this very moment, without referring to thought, can any self be found?
Or has it only ever been thought, claiming things?
You documented, moment by moment, the collapse of the illusion.
So now… Was there ever a “Kate” — in any way, shape, or form — other than as thought about one?

Close your eyes.With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'. There may be other things you can find going on, sure. If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a red glow. There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics.
Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed, I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.
With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?
Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Lisa, a person be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find? Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought/mental imge?

There is already seeing that "Kate" is just thought looping on itself, but doubt is clinging to the idea of someone still being here, doing something, getting somewhere. So, let’s have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions. Please explore the exercises below and report your findings! Remember that we’re looking for some kind of entity, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’. Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’, but remember we are not interested in “seems like” and “feels like” entities, but ones that could be described.
Seems like/feels like = thought content

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.
How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over.

2. Put two objects that you like in front of you (e.g. a cup of coffee and a glass of juice)
Step1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
Step2. Count to 5.
Step3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?
In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?
In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

3. Please take me through a biggish decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you are able to share more details about your decision making...
How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same? How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?

Please take your time with each exercise! Repeat as many times as you need and then write the answers for all of them. Watch like a hawk. Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire with the questions.
Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

Hey Kate

Are we still doing this?
Love
Rali

[KatCat]

Hi Rali,

Yes, so sorry I didn't write. I've been working on the exercises but also have been totally exhausted this weekend. My mother got a hip replacement last week and I have been taking care of her.

I am just sitting down to finish answering your last message.

:)

[KatCat]

With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?

Yes

Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?

No

Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?

It can’t be found in the blackness, no.

Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Lisa, a person be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?

Just blackness. Eyes appear only as a mental image or sensation.

What do you find? Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?

Just blackness plus sensation and thought. I can’t find an inherent see-er.

Would anything that is suggested as the see-er/observer/experiencer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought/mental image?

If there is only the five senses plus thought, then there is nowhere else for it to be than in thought. There is a thought that says “But this still feels like a logical conclusion - like solving a math problem”, simply = thought, thinking.

Exercises: 1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.
How is the movement controlled?

I can’t find a real link between the thought that says “I’m going to turn the hand over” and the actual turning of the hand. There is a variable time span between the thought and the movement on each turn, such that it’s hard to tell which turn each thought is associated with. There is some knowing that it’s going to happen with or without a thought that says “I’m going to do this”, and that knowing is there long before the thought or the action happens. As I did this exercise, there was a sudden thought that said "I am going to get up and go to the bathroom", but that thought wasn’t chosen, it just appeared. And the body has not yet gotten up or gone anywhere.

When I repeat the hand turning exercise, the hand just turns over and over, but there is not necessarily even a thought that says “I am going to turn the hand”. It just happens. And when this was happening, the body suddenly jumped up from the couch and went to get chocolate from the kitchen. Again, no decider. It just happened.

2. Put two objects that you like in front of you (e.g. a cup of coffee and a glass of juice)
Step1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
Step2. Count to 5.
Step3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

The qualities just appeared by themselves. There were some preferences that manifested (the crispness of the apple over the mushiness of a banana, the juiciness of the apple over the density of the banana). These preferences just appeared.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of events?

No, it just happened.

Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting?

No

Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

No

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

It did. It was a thought that happened before I reached for the apple.


Second try: Apple and chocolate bar

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

The qualities just appeared by themselves. Preferences just appeared, they were not chosen.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of events?

This time, the counting just happened while the weighing of pros and cons also happened, or there was a kind of back and forth between the two. This was not chosen, it just happened.

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

This time, it was clear what was going to happen, and then the mind chimed in with a thought that said “I am going to choose the chocolate”, and then I picked up the chocolate.

3. Please take me through a biggish decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you are able to share more details about your decision making...
How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same? How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?

I recently decided to go to a month-long meditation retreat instead of going to South America to participate in a global gathering of practitioners in my field of work. I had spent two years in the organisational committee for this gathering and was planning to go. I found out a few months ago that the month-long retreat would be happening near where I live, and it happened that it was in the same month as the gathering. I applied, knowing there was a chance I wouldn’t get in, and at first, I didn’t get in, but was on the top of the waiting list. Then a woman dropped out, which freed up a spot for me. I was faced with a choice. Both choices would have been great and both are very rare occurrences. I made the decision to go to the retreat and not to go to South America.

The conditions that were necessary for this to happen are:
I work for myself and have the freedom to choose when I take time off
The retreat was happening very close to where I live, so I didn’t need to fly anywhere
One woman dropped out of the retreat, which gave me a spot, since I had been on the waiting list
The main person I was hoping to meet in person at the gathering in South America decided not to go.
The gathering in South America didn’t have many participants, so it didn’t look like it was going to be all we had hoped for.

Most of these conditions were beyond my control, except maybe the first one?
If any one of these conditions had been different, I may not be going to the retreat.
According to thought, it was in my control to choose whether I was going to South America or to the retreat.