Getting past the fear

[poppyseed]

Yes, Tom, this makes perfect sense. You’re not “back at square one”—you are standing where you’ve always been, but now you’re actually noticing the mechanism that built the square in the first place.
Look carefully:
Every narration—“Tom’s life, Tom’s goals, Tom’s problems, Tom’s shoes, here/there”—is just blah blah blah. No more substantial than a cartoon voice layered over colour, sound, sensation.
And here’s the key:
Is there any layer of thought that actually lands without you believing it (thoughts about believing)? Notice that believing the thoughts is also a thought - like second or third thoughts (thoughts about thoughts about thoughts)
Does any thought have weight outside of the narration itself?
Or is every “Tom-layer” only ever another “blah blah blah”—nothing added to what’s already here?
Let’s finish it now.
Where exactly is “Tom” if all that remains is raw colour, raw sound, raw sensation… plus blah blah blah?
Look right now. Where’s the one at the centre?
Patterns of thought arise, sure—narration, memory, planning, self-referencing loops. But does a pattern equal a “Tom”?
Think of it:
Rain falls in patterns. Does that mean there’s a Rain-person running it?
Wind blows in swirls. Does that mean there’s a Wind-self behind it?
OR that's just language :)
Right now:
When the narration says “I’m Tom, I’m here, I’m doing this”—is there anything in direct experience that makes that more than just another sound/image/word floating by?
Can you find Tom anywhere other than in the blah blah blah?

Why would these patterns disappear just because it is seen that there is no actual Tom? That’s the hidden expectation: “If this is really seen, the patterns should vanish.”
But look closely—does the seeing erase birdsong? Does the seeing stop clouds from drifting? Why would it erase narration?
The shift isn’t about deleting the pattern. It’s about seeing the pattern for what it is: just movement, sound, thought, sensation. No owner. No center. No Tom hiding inside it. (CHECK)
So when narration runs, is it actually a problem—or only a problem when believed to mean “me”?
Can you find anywhere that the pattern needs to stop, except in thought’s story about how “awakening should look”?
Remember what I said in the beginning…

When realisation happens, it can be very subtle and if there are expectations of any kind, then it can be missed and the guiding becomes very difficult. I can promise you there will be no fireworks; it is just a subtle shift in perception! The only true expectation, that you can have, is that the seeking will end. If there are any other expectations, it's good to acknowledge them and then set them aside. It is all much simpler and ordinary. Is that OK with you?

Right now, is there still seeking? Don’t answer from memory or theory—look in direct experience. What is actually happening here? And if there is seeking—where is the seeker? What colour, what shape, what location? Is it in sensation, sight, sound—or only a thought saying ‘I’m seeking’?
Look at that seeking directly — what is it made of right now? Is it more than a sensation + a thought that says ‘this means I’m not there yet’? Where is the seeker that supposedly needs to get something? Can you find it outside of that thought-label?

If there is no seeking and a seeker, then what’s missing? If seeking is gone, what else is left to wait for? Is there anything here, right now, that isn’t already complete? Or is the very thought ‘something more should happen’ just the last mask of seeking itself?

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

I do seem like a dog chasing its tale and a lot of that is expectation. Based on what you noted below, yes, the subtle shift in perception has happened. Thoughts are just thoughts and have no meaning. Though seems like a very nihilistic place to be (which assumes there is free will). This then questions seeking - what can be sought if its all meaningless?

then what’s missing?

Meaning, purpose, connection to others

Is there anything here, right now, that isn’t already complete?

It all just seems empty

Or is the very thought ‘something more should happen’ just the last mask of seeking itself?

Yes, i think this has been the belief/expectation for the last few weeks.

Thanks,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

This then questions seeking - what can be sought if its all meaningless?

then what’s missing?

Meaning, purpose, connection to others

Exactly. You see it. These are also thoughts. Now inspect these thoughts closely…
“It’s all meaningless” to whom? Where is the entity that assesses meaning and quality of this? Where is this observer?? The whole flavour of “it seems empty, it should have meaning, I should connect” is the subtle assumption: “I must do something, I must provide meaning, I must connect.” But can you actually find this doer — right now? When the thought “it’s empty” appears, does someone think it? Or does the thought just arrive?
When the sense “I need meaning” arises, does someone author it? Or is it simply here, already complete, like a sound?
So — where is the one who has to “act” or “fix”? Can you find that entity in direct experience?

The thought “it’s all meaningless” is just as much blah-blah as “it’s all deeply meaningful.” Both are labels slapped onto what can’t be captured.
Look now:
Without the label empty, what’s here?
Is there actually a gap where meaning could insert itself?
Does sound lack meaning? Does colour need a purpose to be vivid?
The ache for “meaning, purpose, connection” — does that point to anything lacking in what’s already happening, or is it just more thought spinning a story of lack?

Remember that I analogy with Santa and the joy of Christmas I gave you in the beginning? It’s exactly the same. Santa may not be real but the joy of Christmas very much is and is still there even after the truth about Santa is revealed. It just that Santa never existed, just an illusion layered over, a representation, a symbol, a fairy tale for children.
There is a Buddhist saying "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and rivers once again rivers" which explores the journey of understanding and perception.
First Stage (Mountains are mountains, rivers are rivers): This represents the ordinary, pre-enlightened state of mind where things are perceived as they seem, with labels and concepts.
Second Stage (Mountains are no longer mountains, rivers are no longer rivers): This stage signifies a period of questioning and transcending conventional understanding, where the nature of reality is explored and the limitations of perception are recognized.
Third Stage (Mountains are once again mountains, rivers once again rivers): This represents the state where one sees the world with a newfound clarity and understanding, but not in a way that is detached from the world, but rather with a deeper appreciation for the inherent nature of things (the icons on your desktop).
So if you are feeling detached, that is because of lack of clarity, identification with an observer who sees meaning/no meaning... So lets look at this lack of connection a bit closer.
How can an illusion change actions towards others (aka “connections)?
Furthermore, the concept of connection requires two – you and another. There is no you, as it’s been seen, but what are others in DE?

Right now, when the word “others” comes up — what’s actually here?
A thought-image of faces? A memory? A label “my friend,” “my partner,” “my kids”? Or is there an actual second entity standing apart, separate, “other”?
Look closely:
Is there you here and someone else over there — in direct experience, before the story sticks?
Or are there just colours, sounds, sensations, and thought saying “that’s another person”?
And “connection”… what is that in raw experience?
Is it anything more than a thought-narration saying, “I feel close,” or “we’re separate”?
Right now: can you find anything besides this seamless appearing? Where exactly is the other to connect to?

Right now — this sight, this sensation, this thought — is anything whatsoever missing?

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

It’s all meaningless” to whom? Where is the entity that assesses meaning and quality of this? Where is this observer??

Yes, quite the question. It isnt there when looked for, though seems to sneak back in and make these wild claims. Much of the day has spent in that exact spot where "it" sits. Should the focus be kept there until it evaporates completely?

But can you actually find this doer — right now? When the thought “it’s empty” appears, does someone think it? Or does the thought just arrive?

Just thought, arising on its own

When the sense “I need meaning” arises, does someone author it? Or is it simply here, already complete, like a sound?

Yes like a sound. And with the same meaning, purpose and connection as the buzz of a fan.

o — where is the one who has to “act” or “fix”? Can you find that entity in direct experience?

No. Only in thoughts about direct experience, not in the direct looking itself

Without the label empty, what’s here?

Color, shape, sound, feeling, thoughts

Is there actually a gap where meaning could insert itself?

The meaning comes only in and through thought. It is only thought and cannot assert itself to change what is here

Does sound lack meaning? Does colour need a purpose to be vivid?

Yes, sound lacks meaning. Isnt describing color as dull or vivid just thought?

The ache for “meaning, purpose, connection” — does that point to anything lacking in what’s already happening, or is it just more thought spinning a story of lack?

Just thought. The contrast between states is also an artifact of thought

Remember that I analogy with Santa

Is this current state like knowing Santa isnt real, but still hoping - stuck between beleifs?

How can an illusion change actions towards others (aka “connections)?

Not sure how to make sense of this question. There certainly seems like an experience with others, some closer, like with my kids, so more distant, like at work. But since there is no "I" inside either of us, not sure how to describe what is actually there.

A thought-image of faces? A memory? A label “my friend,” “my partner,” “my kids”? Or is there an actual second entity standing apart, separate, “other”?

Its just thought. Similar to the "voice" of the narrator. A thought says "i can see my sons face" even though there is not an image to be seen.

Is there you here and someone else over there — in direct experience, before the story sticks?
Or are there just colours, sounds, sensations, and thought saying “that’s another person”?
And “connection”… what is that in raw experience?

Not sure. The question becomes to conceptual, hard to see in direct looking.

Is it anything more than a thought-narration saying, “I feel close,” or “we’re separate”?

It would seem it is more complex than that. So many emotions based on being close, no longer being connected, loss of loved ones, etc. But who is close with whom? Who is hurt by the separation? The fact that its also just a story is maybe even more true. But looking directly just seems empty, without meaning - but that is just a comparison to the way it was thought to be.

Right now: can you find anything besides this seamless appearing? Where exactly is the other to connect to?

Its just the seamless appearing and thought. Thought can talk to connections, good and bad, but there are none found here now in this.

Right now — this sight, this sensation, this thought — is anything whatsoever missing?

No

Love

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom
Beautifully seen!
Notice what happened here: every time the story of “meaning, purpose, connection” showed up, you looked — and there was only colour, shape, sound, sensation, thought. No entity needing, no entity lacking, no “other” outside of this seamless appearing.
So here’s is it:
If “connection” shows up only as a thought, if “meaning” shows up only as a thought — where exactly could a lack actually be? Can you find one scrap of deficiency in the raw hum of this moment, before thought jumps in?
Look right now — this breath, this sound, this screen in front of you — is there even a crack through which “empty” or “meaningless” could sneak in? Or is that entire assessment itself nothing but another thought-cloud floating in what never needs anything?
Here are a few koans for your contemplation:
Mahamudra koan: “Is there a difference between abiding in tranquillity and moving in thought?”
“Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.”
Nothing changes, yet everything is different. The “body moves”, thoughts arise, “things get done”, but now the illusion of a separate “I” doing it collapses. That's all!

It isnt there when looked for, though seems to sneak back in and make these wild claims. Much of the day has spent in that exact spot where "it" sits. Should the focus be kept there until it evaporates completely?

That’s the trap right there. Notice how the thought sneaks in. Look carefully:
Who exactly would “keep the focus”? Can you find an entity doing that? Or is there just another thought pretending to manage attention? Is Tom in charge of focus?
Does “it” — this supposed observer — ever actually appear in direct experience? Or only as the idea of a watcher?
And when you look right now, can you find any substance to “sneaks back in”? Or is that phrase just another narration about a thought appearing?
This is the move: don’t try to “burn it away.” See that it has never once appeared outside of thought claiming it.
And this is why you can't turn into a zombie. You (Tom) are simply not in charge of anything - neither your thoughts (about empty detached existence, or getting rid of the observer), nor actions (sensations), etc. Has any sound, colour, or sensation ever needed permission to arrive? The shift happens when all control and doership are seen as futile. The shift isn’t in doing it right — it’s in seeing there’s no one here to do or control at all. And when that’s seen, the whole game of doership is not just futile, it’s laughable.

Is it anything more than a thought-narration saying, “I feel close,” or “we’re separate”?

It would seem it is more complex than that. So many emotions based on being close, no longer being connected, loss of loved ones, etc. But who is close with whom? Who is hurt by the separation? The fact that its also just a story is maybe even more true. But looking directly just seems empty, without meaning - but that is just a comparison to the way it was thought to be.

Yes, exactly — that’s the pivot point. The mind insists “it must be more complex than just thought!” because the emotions feel heavy, gripping, “real.” Yet when you cut it open in direct looking:
The ache of loss? A sensation “in the chest” + thought.
The sense of closeness? “Warm” sensation + thought.
The story of separation? Thought only.
Nothing beyond this raw flicker of sensation + narration ever appears.
We looked at some point at the difference between frustration and wriggling toes. What was the difference between the sensations without the story attached? Different intensity but besides that what makes the one frustration and the other toes (frustrated sensations and sensations containing toes in them)? So what exactly is the difference between “closeness” and “emptiness”/”disconnectedness” without the story? Stay with the raw sensations where all that matters is seen… What is there?
See that even the “emptiness” you report is itself another comparison, another label — thought measuring “how it should be” versus “how it looks now.” Without that commentary, there isn’t even “empty.” There’s just this. Emptiness in the buddhist sense simply means that something is empty of self-nature. And no-thingness means that things are dependently existing as labels. True nothingness (emptiness) means absolutely nothin - no breathing, no heartbeat, zilch. Is there anything here that is not the senses? Those would be physical, but there are also subtle sensations. The way I look at sensations is that they include anything that is sensed, such as touching a cup or a feeling empty. But it's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought.

So — right now - have a good look:
Where is the one who could be “close” or “separate”?
Where is the one who could be “hurt by loss”?
Can you find an actual entity in direct experience, or only sensation + thought (pretending)?
When “my son,” “my partner,” “my friend” shows up — what’s actually present before the label? Look closely: colour-shape, sound, sensation. Anything beyond that?
Is there a border in direct experience that divides “this body” from “that body”? Or is the line only in thought?
If “connection” is real, where is the entity connecting? Can you find two things linking? Or is there just one seamless happening with a narration layered on top? (even that is seemless - Mahamudra koan)
If “loss” is real, where is the lost thing right now — in seeing, in hearing, in sensation? Or only as an image-thought?

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

These pointers raise a lot of questions on doing. It seems like the pointer is read, it is meditated on, an experience is observed. The "I" would say that it read the direction, did the task and observed the result. It would ask for more things to do. But that isnt quite right, is it?

Can you find one scrap of deficiency in the raw hum of this moment, before thought jumps in?

No. This just is

is there even a crack through which “empty” or “meaningless” could sneak in? Or is that entire assessment itself nothing but another thought-cloud floating in what never needs anything?

Just thoughts.

The illusion seems very real, but not sure who it seems real to. As the "I" sits here typing, a narrative around who is doing what, what is missing, what is wanted - arises. Its all just thought. There is no I, there is no doing. Yet the sense of it persists.

Thanks for the koans.

Who exactly would “keep the focus”? Can you find an entity doing that? Or is there just another thought pretending to manage attention? Is Tom in charge of focus?

Just another thought. Tom struggles with "I dont get it, I dont understand, Im stuck" - just thoughts trying to manage attention. Tom is not in charge of anything

Does “it” — this supposed observer — ever actually appear in direct experience? Or only as the idea of a watcher?

The observer is only an idea. An idea reflected off other ideas

And when you look right now, can you find any substance to “sneaks back in”? Or is that phrase just another narration about a thought appearing?

When I look right now, there is no substance other than sensation and thought. But in 30 minutes, it will seem like "Tom" is driving again and thinking on past and future to-dos.

The shift happens when all control and doership are seen as futile.

Seen by who?

Stay with the raw sensations where all that matters is seen… What is there?

Sensation and thought. No control, no choice. No connection, no loss.

Where is the one who could be “close” or “separate”?
Where is the one who could be “hurt by loss”?

In thought only

Can you find an actual entity in direct experience, or only sensation + thought (pretending)?

No, just the pretender

When “my son,” “my partner,” “my friend” shows up — what’s actually present before the label? Look closely: colour-shape, sound, sensation. Anything beyond that?
Is there a border in direct experience that divides “this body” from “that body”? Or is the line only in thought?
If “connection” is real, where is the entity connecting? Can you find two things linking? Or is there just one seamless happening with a narration layered on top? (even that is seemless - Mahamudra koan)
If “loss” is real, where is the lost thing right now — in seeing, in hearing, in sensation? Or only as an image-thought?

Im not sure. It seems there is a concept of "how reality is" that stands in the way of seeing that (even though that is yet another thought). I started to type "this seems like something i should work on", but now am at a loss as to who needs to do what to understand these pointers.

Thanks Rali!

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom
Perfectly seen!
Every time the “I” narrative says “I did this practice, I saw this result, now what should I do next?”—stop and look:
Where is that doer actually? Is it anywhere but in a thought telling a story of ownership?
Right now, what’s here besides the raw hum of sensation, colour, sound, a thought narrating: “I am reading, I am doing, I am missing something”?
Nothing else. No doer. No observer. Just this flicker.

You nailed it when you said:

The observer is only an idea reflected off other ideas.

Exactly. A mirror with nothing in front of it. A thought supported by other thoughts in the pyramid of cards.

Its all just thought. There is no I, there is no doing. Yet the sense of it persists.

But in 30 minutes, it will seem like "Tom" is driving again and thinking on past and future to-dos.

See that even the persistence of “I”/”Tom” is only ever a thought claiming persistence. Right now, can you actually find “Tom” lingering anywhere, or only the thought saying “Tom persists”?
Does that mean that Tom will spring into existence in 30 min? Or they will be just more unchecked thoughts ABOUT Tom? Will there be anyone/entity who will believe that Tom is real?
A belief is a thought supported by other thoughts. So it’s not just one thought to be inquired into, If Tom “appears” in driving then look when driving – how are the hands moving, are you in control of your reflexes when you press the breaks? Or maybe choose a safer activity ;)
We are inquiring into the main beliefs (the base of the pyramid) but the self is built on many thoughts which need to be checked (by no one). Doer is quie a general belief, so maybe looking into specific "doers" would be productive. Not to see that there is no doer (that has been seen already) but just to "see" the mechanism... How will that happen and when, is not in your control - it just happens as result of the rival thought/virus "LOOK!", which causes thoughts to self-correct and self-organise around experience instead of other thoughts (beliefs). That "seeing" and reorganising happens in the light of "no self" which has become a new core thought. That doen't mean that thoughts will appear without a "subject" - that is just language - but it is "believed"/"seen" (self-organising in progress) that there are no entities and just syntax. There is adifference between an illusion and a delusion. An illusion is something that looks like something else. An illusion can be seen as that even when knowing it is just an illusion. A delusion, on the other hand, is believing that is true. Can you see the difference? Which leads me to:

The shift happens when all control and doership are seen as futile.

Seen by who?

Exactly! That “seen by who?” question is the perfect opening.
Is there an entity doing the seeing, or do thoughts simply self-organise and call it “me saw this”?
The “interpreter” is just another thought, narrating after the fact. Instructions show up, body moves, sensations appear, thought jumps in and says “I interpreted, I did it, I saw it.”

The “self” is nothing but thought "claiming" ownership of self-organising processes that were already happening. It is just an illusion, a mirage of an oasis in the desert. The difference is that you know that there will be no water. Tom, let’s do this live, right now:
Read this sentence slowly. Just let the words appear.
Notice what actually happens. Eyes move across the page, words show up, meaning seems to register. Did you do any of that? Or did it just happen?
Watch the next move. Almost instantly, a thought pops in: “I understood,” “I interpreted,” “I need to work on this.”
Can you see that?
Now check: Where was this “interpreter” before the thought arrived? Can you find one? Or is it only a thought claiming ownership of what was already happening?
Repeat a few times.
Read another line. Notice the chain: words appear → meaning registers → thought claims “I interpreted this.”
Look closely: is there any entity doing the seeing? Or is it just thoughts self-organising and sticking the “me” label on top after the fact?
That’s the “seen by who?” question collapsing itself.

When “my son,” “my partner,” “my friend” shows up — what’s actually present before the label? Look closely: colour-shape, sound, sensation. Anything beyond that?
Is there a border in direct experience that divides “this body” from “that body”? Or is the line only in thought?
If “connection” is real, where is the entity connecting? Can you find two things linking? Or is there just one seamless happening with a narration layered on top? (even that is seemless - Mahamudra koan)
If “loss” is real, where is the lost thing right now — in seeing, in hearing, in sensation? Or only as an image-thought?

I’m not sure. It seems there is a concept of "how reality is" that stands in the way of seeing that (even though that is yet another thought). I started to type "this seems like something i should work on", but now am at a loss as to who needs to do what to understand these pointers.

In the light of the previous pointers has this changed in any way? Please answer these questions individually
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Where is that doer actually? Is it anywhere but in a thought telling a story of ownership?

No, it is just thought. What is behind the focus, then, that gets fixated on the story of the doer, the practice, the result and what "I" should do next? It seems like the focus only sees the thought narrative at the exclusion of the present moment, which makes the narrative more real.

Right now, what’s here besides the raw hum of sensation, colour, sound, a thought narrating: “I am reading, I am doing, I am missing something”?

Nothing

Right now, can you actually find “Tom” lingering anywhere, or only the thought saying “Tom persists”?

No, its just thought. Perhaps it would more accurate to say thoughts about past thoughts. Memories from earlier today tell a story of how Tom was very much in charge, focused on the minutiae of Toms life. Thoughts are reflecting off of thoughts that seem like memories, but are arising now.

Does that mean that Tom will spring into existence in 30 min? Or they will be just more unchecked thoughts ABOUT Tom? Will there be anyone/entity who will believe that Tom is real?

No, the illusion doesnt fade in or out, it seems more like focus sometimes shifts to a thought/Tom saturated experience. But even though the focus may be more on thought, what is present will not have changed.

how are the hands moving, are you in control of your reflexes when you press the breaks?

Tom is not in control of anything. The hand moves the steering wheel, the foot presses on the brakes. Thoughts arise claiming ownership or something like "I need to drive slower so I dont get a ticket" But the thought narrative of ownership comes after the action, after the decision has been made.

Can you see the difference?

Yes, i understand the difference in definitions, but the previously believed concept of reality has been so challenged I'm not sure I could point to what is an illusion and what is a delusion.

Is there an entity doing the seeing, or do thoughts simply self-organise and call it “me saw this”?

Yes, this is something I struggle to comprehend or see through. I understand that the illusion of a little man at the control panel inside my mind pulling levers is false. But, it still seems like what is seen is dependent on where my head is pointed. Sounds are only heard that are within earshot.
So thoughts get wrapped around the concept of Tom the body and he sees and hears, so therefore he must be the entity that is 'doing.' And that seems to be enough to allow the concept of I/Me/Tom to persist. It gets twisted into like a semantic argument (thought arguing with thought). Hope this makes sense, it is a bit convoluted.

Did you do any of that? Or did it just happen?

Yes, it seems like there are at least two things happening. The narrator is reading the words (implied sense of sound in my head) and "understands" there meaning. But there is also the experience of it just happening, like a flow state.

Can you see that?

Yes

Now check: Where was this “interpreter” before the thought arrived? Can you find one? Or is it only a thought claiming ownership of what was already happening?

The interpreter doesn't exist. But its arrival is so habitual / natural it is difficult to experience the separate things of "eyes moving across the page" and narration.

is there any entity doing the seeing? Or is it just thoughts self-organising and sticking the “me” label on top after the fact?

Im not sure. Eyes move, words are seen, does thought come in befre/during the 'meaning/understanding' part?

When “my son,” “my partner,” “my friend” shows up — what’s actually present before the label? Look closely: colour-shape, sound, sensation. Anything beyond that?

Yes, only sensation

Is there a border in direct experience that divides “this body” from “that body”? Or is the line only in thought?

Maybe I dont understand the question. There is an experience of sensation in this body and no experience of feeling associated with that body. There is still a belief of "Im 'me', in here, you are 'you' over there"

if “connection” is real, where is the entity connecting? Can you find two things linking? Or is there just one seamless happening with a narration layered on top?

Connection is a concept, a thought about an experience - so connection only happens in thought. It still seems like things are separate and not one seamless thing.

if “loss” is real, where is the lost thing right now — in seeing, in hearing, in sensation? Or only as an image-thought?

Only as an image thought.

In the light of the previous pointers has this changed in any way?

Im not sure. It seems like you and I are different entities. We connect through of this website and these chats. I cant have the experience of what the floor feels like under your feet right now. So in that model of reality, experience seems like there are separate people that go about as "me's" that come in and out of "Tom's" experience. When my son walks into the room, it seems like we can have a conversation on a topic and 'connect' over it.
But when i look directly, I can see that just experience is happening. There isnt a me that is doing. But the sensations associated with the experience seem unique to my position (what i see, hear, and feel) so "I" am having a slightly different experience than my son is.

Thanks, Rali.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom,
Notice what’s happening:
Every time you say “it still seems like…” or “I don’t understand” or “maybe I’m missing something,” that is not you speaking. That is a thought. A narration. An interpreter pretending to stand outside of experience and explain it.
So look now:
Can you find the interpreter in sensation, in colour, in sound? Or only as a thought claiming ownership?
When seeing happens, is there anything in DE that says “Tom saw this”—or does thought arrive later and slap the “me” label on what already happened (i.e. seeing)?

There aren’t two models of reality to reconcile. There’s only sensation, colour, sound—plus thought weaving a story about “me over here, you over there, connection, separation.” The interpreter is not standing above it—it is inside the story itself.
So next time the "voice" says: “But I still don’t get it, it still seems separate”—don’t fight it, don’t follow it. Just look:
Is that anything but thought self-organising?
Is there an actual entity there, or only narration happening by itself?
Stay with this until the question “Who sees? Who does? Who connects?” falls flat.

Some details…

What is behind the focus, then, that gets fixated on the story of the doer, the practice, the result and what "I" should do next? It seems like the focus only sees the thought narrative at the exclusion of the present moment, which makes the narrative more real.

Look right now:
Where is this “focus” in direct experience? Can you see it, touch it, hear it, feel it—anything other than a thought saying “focus is here”?
Does focus exist apart from what’s appearing (colour, sound, sensation)? Or is it just a word thought slaps onto what’s already showing up?
When a bird chirps—did “focus” arrive first to aim at it? Or did the chirp simply appear, undeniable, already complete?
What can you possibly focus on in just this – inseparable, indescribable, whole? There are no even separate sensations, thoughts, sounds, colours, tastes, smells without the DE labels. Again, are there focus and just this, OR just this?
Separation exists only as labels that cut out artificial shapes and forms out of the whole. So is there focus at all or just thought describing “details”/patterns “one at a time”?
Notice:
There is no thing behind focus. There is just the raw appearing—plus a thought claiming: “I am focusing on this, not that.”
So ask:
If focus itself is only thought—what exactly is there to “get fixated”?
The story is not more real when focus “lands.” It’s only narration saying: “Now I’m focused on the story, now I’m stuck.” But is there an actual stuck-ness in sensation? Or only another thought claiming it?
Check: right now, without the word “focus,” what’s here?

Im not sure. It seems like you and I are different entities. We connect through of this website and these chats. I cant have the experience of what the floor feels like under your feet right now. So in that model of reality, experience seems like there are separate people that go about as "me's" that come in and out of "Tom's" experience. When my son walks into the room, it seems like we can have a conversation on a topic and 'connect' over it.
But when i look directly, I can see that just experience is happening. There isnt a me that is doing. But the sensations associated with the experience seem unique to my position (what i see, hear, and feel) so "I" am having a slightly different experience than my son is.

Remember seems like/feels like = thought story
NOTHING in DE is seems like or feels like
Let’s examine what you say is there vs what is actually there:
Thoughts vs DE

First thing, my body vs other body:
My body = sensations
Other body = colours
Thoughts ABOUT other body’s sensations = thoughts (aka conditioned interpretation of colour)
Interpretation is neither here nor there, it just IS

Second, my thoughts vs other’s thoughts (e.g. chat on the forum, others’ speech)
Chat:
My thoughts = thoughts
Other’s thoughts = colour (black and white) + thought (conditioned interpretation of colours)
In speech:
Other’s speech = sound + thought (conditioned interpretation of sound)
Interpretation is neither here nor there, it just IS

Third, touching another
Me touching my son = one sensation (location-less)
Thinking how his skin is so soft = thought about a sensation
Interpretation is neither here nor there, it just IS

So in DE, where could possibly that other be??

But, it still seems like what is seen is dependent on where my head is pointed. Sounds are only heard that are within earshot. So thoughts get wrapped around the concept of Tom the body and he sees and hears, so therefore he must be the entity that is 'doing.' And that seems to be enough to allow the concept of I/Me/Tom to persist. It gets twisted into like a semantic argument (thought arguing with thought).

Look closer:
Is there ever an actual “head” in direct experience? Or only colour-shape + sensation + a thought saying “this is my head”?
When sound is heard, does it say “I am within earshot”? Or is that thought drawing a map after the fact? Comparing possible unheard sounds vs what is here?
Is there an entity turning the head to direct experience—or does seeing/hearing just shift, already complete?
Notice:
The claim “Tom sees because the head points there” is itself another narration—thought tying sensation to a character. But in raw looking, there’s no head, no ear, no Tom. There’s just seeing, just hearing.
So test it right now:

Look on your right. Then look on your left. Finally, bring your head back to centre, close your eyes and look in front.
Okay, so when you look on the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is).
When you look on the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).
And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (i.e. ‘blackness’).
So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘blackness’ if you close your eyes.
The question is; can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?
Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?
Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?
Can you turn off seeing?
What did the 'chooser' choose?
Did a 'self' choose something?
If you are unable to choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

an you find the interpreter in sensation, in colour, in sound? Or only as a thought claiming ownership?

Just thought

When seeing happens, is there anything in DE that says “Tom saw this”—or does thought arrive later and slap the “me” label on what already happened (i.e. seeing)?

Yes, it is thought applied afterwards

Where is this “focus” in direct experience? Can you see it, touch it, hear it, feel it—anything other than a thought saying “focus is here”?

No, focus is a description from thought of how thought describes the experience

oes focus exist apart from what’s appearing (colour, sound, sensation)? Or is it just a word thought slaps onto what’s already showing up?

Just a word

When a bird chirps—did “focus” arrive first to aim at it? Or did the chirp simply appear, undeniable, already complete?

The chirp appears, thought arises after

Again, are there focus and just this, OR just this?

Just this

So is there focus at all or just thought describing “details”/patterns “one at a time”?

Just thought describing, trying to take ownership by explaining

If focus itself is only thought—what exactly is there to “get fixated”?

Yes, its just the self-referencing loop of thought

But is there an actual stuck-ness in sensation? Or only another thought claiming it?

No, sensation flows, it doesnt get stuck. Stuck-ness is a description from thought

Check: right now, without the word “focus,” what’s here?

Sensation and thought

So in DE, where could possibly that other be??

Yes, its the confusion of desktop icons for actual folders holding actual files. It cannot be described other than seems like, because of the thought dependent nature of the interpretation.

Is there ever an actual “head” in direct experience? Or only colour-shape + sensation + a thought saying “this is my head”?

Yes, when the interpretation from thought is removed, it is just sensation

When sound is heard, does it say “I am within earshot”? Or is that thought drawing a map after the fact? Comparing possible unheard sounds vs what is here?

No, sound is just sound. Meaning, distance, etc. are all products of thought that come after.

Is there an entity turning the head to direct experience—or does seeing/hearing just shift, already complete?

It is already complete. The story of my head, turning to the side to see the wall that is there is all thought/narration

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see?

No, seeing occurs

can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

No, what is seen is what is

Can you turn off seeing?

No

What did the 'chooser' choose?

There is no chooser

Did a 'self' choose something?

No, it is just this

If you are unable to choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Yes, choice is just another illusion. Choice is part of the implication of a subject, a me who likes/dislikes, etc.

Thanks, Rali.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom,
Wonderful! You’ve seen it very clearly: the bird chirps, the sound appears, already complete—and only afterwards thought says “I focused on it,” “I chose to hear.”
But let’s look sharper:
Right now, without the word “interpretation”—what’s left? Can you find anything more than raw happening + a thought trying to explain it?
If choice is only narration after the fact, is there any moment in which a “you” is needed for seeing, hearing, moving to unfold?
If there’s no gap to insert choice, focus, or interpretation—what else could “you” possibly be?
Here’s the cut:
If there’s no choosing, no focusing, no interpreting in direct experience—
then is there any function left at all for “Tom”?
Or is Tom only the ghost-story thought pasting itself on what never needed him?
Stay with that. Let it burn until there’s nothing left to hold onto.
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

what’s left?

Just the "this-ness" of the now, unfolding as it does

Can you find anything more than raw happening + a thought trying to explain it?

No

is there any moment in which a “you” is needed for seeing, hearing, moving to unfold?

No. Tom is an afterthought grafted on to what is happening

what else could “you” possibly be?

I am the narrative on top of what has happened, trying to take control through 'understanding, 'conceptualizing', and 'owning.' I am the hopes and fears projected into what might happen with the thought that I can change what unfolds

then is there any function left at all for “Tom”?

No

Or is Tom only the ghost-story thought pasting itself on what never needed him?

Yes. Tom is the lever used to get a handle on experience, but only an illusion. There is no handle, no one to lever it and nothing to control

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom,
This is beautiful. You’ve already cut it down to “just this, no Tom needed.” The mind will still try to spin it into philosophy: “Yes, but maybe I don’t really get it, maybe it’s just intellectual.” That’s only the last trick. The truth is simpler: there never was a “Tom” doing, choosing, or owning. Just raw happening + a thought trying to explain.
Here are some checkpoint questions. They’re not a test. They’re not about giving “right answers.” They’re a way for you to confirm, in your own words, what has already been seen. Stick to direct experience, not theory. Take your time with them, answer carefully, and let it be as clear and simple as possible:

1.Is there a separate entity—self, “me,” “I,” “Tom”—anywhere, in any way, shape, or form? Was there ever?
2.Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts, and how it works—from your own direct experience. Describe exactly as you see it now — not as you remember seeing it before.
3.How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? What’s different in the past few days? Give examples
4.What was the last bit that pushed you over—made you really look? The thing that made it clear?
5.Decision, intention, free will, choice, control:
Describe decision. Give a live example from this moment or from today.
Describe intention. Give a current example from experience.
Describe free will. Give an example from today.
Describe choice — look for it now. Example.
Describe control — is there any? Example from now.
What makes anything happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Look right now!
6. Anything to add?

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

1.Is there a separate entity—self, “me,” “I,” “Tom”—anywhere, in any way, shape, or form? Was there ever?

No, and there never was. Tom was the story grafted on to what was happening as means for thought to narrate, "control" and pretend to bein charge.

2.Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts, and how it works—from your own direct experience. Describe exactly as you see it now — not as you remember seeing it before.

The illusion of separate self includes the "I/Me/Tom" that narrates, that is implied in language and thought, that does things. Tom hears, sees and feels. In the illusion, seeing is an action, when in truth what is seen appears. The separate self is apart from the setting and not part of what is happening. The separate self is an actor that does - makes decisions, plans, remembers - and is whipsawed by what is good and bad in life. Couldnt say when it starts. Part of how it works is thoughts implying a "me" at the center, thought reflecting other thoughts and sometimes still more reflections of other thoughts. This creates a sense of narration and story that there is some intangible thing (a "me") that is the main character.

3.How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? What’s different in the past few days? Give examples

It feels a bit confusing. The illusion is seen, but thoughts still fight to understand the true nature of things. The main difference is a greater sense of peace with the ebbs and flows of life. Things happen and are neither good or bad. Feelings like stress or happiness are made up labels put on sensation, put on outcomes. There is a feeling of ease of not needing the character "Tom" to keep it together, to achieve goals, etc., instead life unfolds as it does. For example, im interviewing for a job and everything is ok whether Im offered the position or not. It somewhat curious not needing to be in control of what happens next.

4.What was the last bit that pushed you over—made you really look? The thing that made it clear?

Not sure what the last thing was. A week or so back the questions of 'who cares', 'who needs to know" and showing that even the deepest, most significant thoughts were no different than 'blah, blah, blah'

Describe decision. Give a live example from this moment or from today.

Decision is a thought that arrives after. It points to the perceived decision and states the reasons why one option was chosen over another. It is a fantasy. For example, choosing these words - they just happen.

Describe intention. Give a current example from experience

Intention is like decision. A thought about a potential future outcome. Just a thought. As mentioned, interviewing for a new job - it could be great, but will either happen or it wont. Thoughts dont control anything.

Describe free will. Give an example from today.

Another illusion that posits there is a metaphorical little man in my head making decisions and pulling levers.

Describe choice — look for it now. Example.

Like decision, choice is a thought construct that imagines what happens next is up to 'me.' There were several options for dinner, I ate chicken. It happened, and there was no need to dwell on thoughts of 'what would i like best', 'what would be easiest to cook', etc.

Describe control — is there any? Example from now.

If there is no choice, no decision, no free will - how can there be control? There is no I, so there is no one who controls what is typed, how these questions are answered.

What makes anything happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Look right now!

Things unfold. There is no evidence of a something that 'makes' them happen the way they do. I have no idea how it works - does anyone? What is who responsible for?

6. Anything to add?

There is still some expectation and some thoughts that say "is this it"? As you noted, thoughts continue to rattle around asking if this is it, maybe its just a conceptual and not practical understanding etc. Do these go away or just stop landing less and less?

Thanks, Rali.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom,
Beautifully seen. Notice how each of your answers lands in the same place: no decision-maker, no controller, no Tom apart from thought.

There is still some expectation and some thoughts that say "is this it"? As you noted, thoughts continue to rattle around asking if this is it, maybe its just a conceptual and not practical understanding etc. Do these go away or just stop landing less and less?

That “is this it?” thought as we've seen is not proof of something missing — it’s just another thought. And even that thought appears, unfolds, and vanishes without anyone behind it.
Let the questions about “will this fade?” or “was this enough?” be met in the same way.
Can you find the one who’s asking? Or only thought, self-organising, looping back?
The shift isn’t about erasing thoughts — it’s seeing that they never belonged to anyone. When that’s clear, whether they land or not doesn’t matter anymore.

I'll pass your answers to the other guides so they check if we've missed anything. Please stay close for some questions :)
Love
Rali