?

[cha0101]

PS along the lines of euphoria being sensations + thought commentary, is it similar to when we love things?
I saw this quote a while back and wanted to ask your opinion!
"The feeling of love is a great mistake if one gets entangled in it. There is love for so many things. The minute the illusion is created, the entanglement begins."

[cha0101]

I think I posted this already, a few minutes ago. but don't see it in registered in the thread. re-posting just in case!

Hi Rali,

Please excuse my slow reply — even though there’s actual no forgiver or forgivee in this situation lol. As I mentioned in the dm, I really have no explanation for the delay, except that I hit a wall each time I sat down to communicate. Re-reading the notes from the last message helped. The very simple ‘noticing sensation + thought’ does help dissolve the story.

Who slipped back?
A phrase appeared. Then a thought said “I slipped.” Then a sensation. That’s all.

There is no one there to slip back, yes, it’s just a thought.

Can you find a “someone” who chose the phrase? A “me” who should’ve done differently? A “doer” behind the thoughts?
There’s no one there — only thoughts self-organising and sensations appearing. Nothing went wrong.
Nothing needed to be prevented. Just noticing is enough.

That nothing can be wrong — a good reminder ty!

With guilt, as with any other emotion, check:
What is the DE? (sensation + thought)
What about the raw sensation – any guilt in it?

Yes, the thought was exactly that something was going wrong. Also in trying to overcome a ‘block’, thoughts saying something is wrong, plus sensations, that thoughts say are related by cause and effect. Staying with the raw sensation, with curiosity as though the sensation hasn’t been seen before. Thank you for the reminder of the curiosity, and pointer back to DE. Neutral, present, and real experience of life :)

The feeling “I lost it” is simply another appearance — not a fact.
When noise rises… Notice the texture in the chest. The speed of thought. The tightening in the throat. The labels piled on top. None of this obscures DE unless thought claims it does.

What do you think about using phrases like “it’s just a thought” or “don’t believe the thoughts” or “what is the experience right now without these thoughts” or other phrases. Something quick to say when it’s not easy to practice the more settled noticing, because of intensity of thought-storms? Would saying these things subtly reinforce the thought of a self, that shouldn’t believe the thoughts?

Check again:
In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'? Where is the line where hearing ends and the heard begins?

There are not 2 things, hearing and the heard. Only thoughts that say so.

Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?

What is doing the hearing can’t be found. Only the heard is found.

An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? a pair of ears? Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard'?

There is only what can be heard.

Can an INHERENT HEARER/a witness be found? Would anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

It’s only a thought, that there is a hearer.
And arising is a thought that says, but if there isn’t a hearer, there is no way to stop or get away from what is heard lol

Right after the knot loosens, two things often appear: a sense of grief (“something precious might vanish”) or a sense of euphoria (“finally, this is it!”)
Both are the same:
sensations + thought commentary.

Oh! Yes! euphoria isn’t a breaking into freedom. Of course, it’s sensation + thought commentary.

Look directly:
Is grief anything other than sensation + a thought about “loss”?
Is euphoria anything other than sensation + a thought about “gain”?
Nothing is actually gained or lost.
There never was a “holder” of experience.

Yes, both are actually just sensation + thought.

But look:
Is there any mechanism in DE? Any gears? Any causal chain? Any “system” behind appearances?

No mechanism. Only sound, colour, sensation, etc.

And then the question becomes: Who benefits from this? What witnesses the 1000 appearances and knows that things are going in the right direction?
You don’t need to hold anything steady. Just keep noticing:
seeing — hearing — sensing — smelling — tasting — thinking.
Let all of it flow.

No one to witness. So simple, neutral and natural, DE, “life processing itself”, that it “appears because it appears” and “everything else is story”. So good. Thank you Rali!

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal,
You’re doing beautifully. Let’s keep it simple and direct.

PS along the lines of euphoria being sensations + thought commentary, is it similar to when we love things?
I saw this quote a while back and wanted to ask your opinion!
"The feeling of love is a great mistake if one gets entangled in it. There is love for so many things. The minute the illusion is created, the entanglement begins."

Love isn’t a problem. Clinging to the idea of love is.
It’s very common to think that love has to come from someone else, from outside. But look closely: can any sensation in the body tell you it originated “over there”?
Warmth arises → then a thought says, “they made me feel this” “this is love,” “this is special,” “this is mine”
Openness arises → then a thought says, “I feel this because of them.”
But in DE, there is only this warmth, this openness, this movement in the chest — happening here. No distance. No giver. No receiver. The "heart" loves simply because love is what appears. It doesn’t come from anyone. It doesn’t go to anyone. It’s just life moving as warmth.
The minute love is tied to conditions - “only if they stay,” “only if they respond,” “only if they behave a certain way” - it’s not the love that became limited. It’s only a thought contracting around the sensation. Love itself is unbounded. Only the story creates ownership and dependence.
When the story drops, love is free again — not personal, not relational, not coming from or going to anyone. Just appearing, the same way sound appears or breath appears. This is why unconditional love is simply love without a narrative.
Look at it the same way we looked at fear, guilt, euphoria:
Love = sensation + thought.
Warmth in the chest, openness, expansion, simply = sensation.
The entanglement isn’t the feeling. The entanglement is the story around it. Just ask:
Does the sensation call itself “love”?
Does it claim ownership?
Does it ask for anything?
Does it bind you to anyone or anything?
No. The raw sensation is simple, immediate, free. What creates the stickiness is thought. Take the thought off, and what remains is just warmth — not a trap, not a mistake, not an illusion. Just life moving.
Love without story is not entanglement. It’s just openness happening (no resistance).
Exactly the same as sound appearing, breath moving, or laughter arising.

What do you think about using phrases like “it’s just a thought” or “don’t believe the thoughts” or “what is the experience right now without these thoughts” or other phrases. Something quick to say when it’s not easy to practice the more settled noticing, because of intensity of thought-storms? Would saying these things subtly reinforce the thought of a self, that shouldn’t believe the thoughts?

Nothing wrong with it if it brings you directly back to DE. It only becomes a problem if it turns into a new “someone” trying to manage thoughts. Use it as a soft reminder, not a command. You can also use “LOOK” :). So:
“Just a thought” → sensation + thought seen → done.

It’s only a thought, that there is a hearer.
And arising is a thought that says, but if there isn’t a hearer, there is no way to stop or get away from what is heard lol

Look at it slowly:
Is there a “you” trapped?
Or is there only sound + a thought that says “I can’t get away”?
The thought is the trap — not the sound. Remove the thought, and what’s left is simply hearing happening.

Oh! Yes! euphoria isn’t a breaking into freedom. Of course, it’s sensation + thought commentary.

Yes!! Euphoria, grief, love — all the same structure. None of them are “special.” None of them say anything about awakening. Each one is the same formula:
Sensation + label + commentary.
When the label drops, only life remains — simple, unowned, effortless.
Keep looking like this — you’re cutting right through the last shadows of the seeker.
Love
Rali

[cha0101]

Hi Rali,

Sometimes it takes hearing something a few times before it sinks in. Thank you for saying things in different ways, with clarity and creative insight.

Love isn’t a problem. Clinging to the idea of love is.
It’s very common to think that love has to come from someone else, from outside. But look closely: can any sensation in the body tell you it originated “over there”?

yes ok, I know you pointed something like this out before, but it didn’t quite sink in. It hits differently this time.
It’s a perfect question to cut through the fog :) To clarify and remember to go to DE.
‘Can and sensation in the body tell you it originated “over there”? ‘
The sensation doesn’t say anything, it’s just sensation arising.

The entanglement isn’t the feeling. The entanglement is the story around it. Just ask:
Does the sensation call itself “love”?
Does it claim ownership?
Does it ask for anything?
Does it bind you to anyone or anything?

The sensation doesn’t call itself love. Nor claim ownership. Nor ask for anything. Nor bind.
It’s just sensation, happening.

The raw sensation is simple, immediate, free. What creates the stickiness is thought. Take the thought off, and what remains is just warmth — not a trap, not a mistake, not an illusion. Just life moving.

Can you say the same thing about being tired? Tiredness isn’t really a feeling, more a mix of sensation and thoughts. Or is it in a slightly different category because it affects how the body functions so strongly? I imagine someone could be deeply fatigued and still let go of the thoughts and labels, and sense the effortless simplicity of life even in that state.

You can also use “LOOK” :). So:
“Just a thought” → sensation + thought seen → done.

“Look” is great. Ty.

And arising is a thought that says, but if there isn’t a hearer, there is no way to stop or get away from what is heard lol
Look at it slowly:
Is there a “you” trapped?
Or is there only sound + a thought that says “I can’t get away”?
The thought is the trap — not the sound. Remove the thought, and what’s left is simply hearing happening.

There’s nobody trapped. Just sound + thoughts.
And right now there a few thoughts saying “can’t wait to try this the 'next time' the illusion of 'sound-interfering' is believed". lol

Thank you Rali. Have a great rest of your day!

In appreciation,
Chal

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal,
Beautiful seeing here — this whole message shows that clarity is deepening exactly as it should.

The sensation doesn’t say anything, it’s just sensation arising.

Yes! Love isn’t a problem. Clinging to the idea of love is. The sensation doesn’t point to “over there,” doesn’t name itself “love,” doesn’t ask for anything, doesn’t bind you to anyone. The whole tangle comes from a thought about the sensation — not from the sensation itself. When the story drops, what remains is simple warmth, free to appear and disappear without ownership. That’s all.

Can you say the same thing about being tired? Tiredness isn’t really a feeling, more a mix of sensation and thoughts. Or is it in a slightly different category because it affects how the body functions so strongly? I imagine someone could be deeply fatigued and still let go of the thoughts and labels, and sense the effortless simplicity of life even in that state.

Yes — the same principle applies.
Tiredness is sensation + thought label.
The sensations might be heavier, slower, more persistent, and the body might function differently, but none of that gives them meaning. You can be exhausted and still see: just heaviness, just pressure, just fogginess, just thought saying “I’m tired”. No one is in it. No one is suffering it. Just appearance (i.e. sensations), happening the same way sound or colour happens. Fatigue doesn’t block DE — only the thought “this is a problem” does.

There’s nobody trapped. Just sound + thoughts.
And right now there a few thoughts saying “can’t wait to try this the 'next time' the illusion of 'sound-interfering' is believed". lol

This is a perfect example of how thought tries to recreate a “me.” Look slowly… Sound appears. Then a thought appears: “I can’t get away.”
Where is the “I” in DE? Nowhere. The trap is not the sound — the trap is the thought trying to invent a listener. Remove the thought, and what’s left? Only sound-ing.
You already saw the humour in it — perfect.

“Look” is great. Ty.

Keep using “LOOK” whenever the mind kicks up commentary. It’s the clean cut back to what’s actually here.

At this stage, let’s keep it very simple and very direct. For the next few days, try just one thing:
When any emotion or state shows up — warmth, tiredness, love, irritation, heaviness — pause and look before the label.
Ask quietly:
What is the raw DE here? (pressure, warmth, tingling, vibration…)
Can anything in this sensation say it belongs to someone?
Is there an experiencer of the experience — or only the experience itself?
Don’t analyse. Don’t try to change anything. Just look at the exact moment the mind attaches “love,” “tired,” “sad,” “me,” “mine,” “too much,” “not enough.” That attachment — that tiny moment — is where the illusion tightens. And that’s exactly where it dissolves.
Sensation is always innocent. The story is optional. Everything else is already unfolding on its own.
Love
Rali

[cha0101]

The sensation doesn’t point to “over there,” doesn’t name itself “love,” doesn’t ask for anything, doesn’t bind you to anyone. The whole tangle comes from a thought about the sensation — not from the sensation itself. When the story drops, what remains is simple warmth, free to appear and disappear without ownership.

Tiredness is sensation + thought label.
The sensations might be heavier, slower, more persistent, and the body might function differently, but none of that gives them meaning. You can be exhausted and still see: just heaviness, just pressure, just fogginess, just thought saying “I’m tired”. No one is in it. No one is suffering it. Just appearance (i.e. sensations), happening the same way sound or colour happens. Fatigue doesn’t block DE — only the thought “this is a problem” does.

Even while there is no self inhabiting a body, there is often a feeling of gratitude for the ah ha's that show up, and pivot the experience of life. There is a suspended quality of surprise that comes and goes, about the truth that suffering is just thoughts arising.

Like in this case, recognition of suffering being only thoughts feels changes ‘brain chemistry’, and another thought shows up about what an incredible relief it is to have a different 'brain sensation', in relation to life.

Relief about this (that suffering is only thoughts) is really just another case of more thoughts trying to invent a someone. Someone who is living the experience of relief (like the example of sound, and inventing a listener.)

Feeling this kind of relief feels like a gift, personally felt, as though it's some kind of gift received from a vague source. And even before dismissing the personal self belief, and 'personal gift' belief, thoughts come up to say that a dismissing of the treasure of relief is so rude, and bypassing.

But then it’s so interesting to stay with the direct experience of the chatter, and feel those thought tensions loosen on their own. Just by watching thoughts come and go. Noticing emotions about it rise and fall.

So just stating, to make more of a habit here: it's just 'relief', as a combo of sensations + thought appearing. And then sometimes lots of added story that say things like 'thank god for the change in brain chemistry and patterns of thought'.

The trap is not the sound — the trap is the thought trying to invent a listener. Remove the thought, and what’s left? Only sound-ing.

This might not be valuable to be looking at, perhaps too mental? but could you say thoughts themselves have a nature? The nature of thoughts is to invent and create illusion?

Ask quietly:
What is the raw DE here? (pressure, warmth, tingling, vibration…)
Can anything in this sensation say it belongs to someone?
Is there an experiencer of the experience — or only the experience itself?

This is now on a post-it note :) Ty :)

Look slowly… Sound appears. Then a thought appears: “I can’t get away.”
Where is the “I” in DE? Nowhere. The trap is not the sound — the trap is the thought trying to invent a listener. Remove the thought, and what’s left? Only sound-ing.

Another post-it reminder, for thought illusions (trapped by sound, suffering because of ____, etc):

“Look”

“Where is the I in DE”

“What is thought trying to invent here?”

“What remains when thought is removed?”

What is DE?
(Not “what is the DE being experienced right now” .. which came up for a moment to write, thoughts to override the simplicity of simply “What is DE”)

Just checking this out with you — it’s an ok flow?

At this stage, let’s keep it very simple and very direct. For the next few days, try just one thing:
When any emotion or state shows up — warmth, tiredness, love, irritation, heaviness — pause and look before the label.
Ask quietly:
What is the raw DE here? (pressure, warmth, tingling, vibration…)
Can anything in this sensation say it belongs to someone?
Is there an experiencer of the experience — or only the experience itself?
Don’t analyse. Don’t try to change anything. Just look at the exact moment the mind attaches “love,” “tired,” “sad,” “me,” “mine,” “too much,” “not enough.”
That attachment — that tiny moment — is where the illusion tightens. And that’s exactly where it dissolves.

Ok perfect,
“What is the raw DE here? (pressure, warmth, tingling, vibration…)”
“Can anything in this sensation say it belongs to someone?”
“Is there an experiencer of the experience — or only the experience itself?”

Sensation is always innocent. The story is optional. Everything else is already unfolding on its own.

This is beautiful and who would ever know the truth of sensation — that it’s innocent — unless it were taught or pointed to by another (however you say that).

Actually, what language would you use there that feels clearer, when not using the convention of 'another' or 'other'? Even though of course it’s fine to use convention, while not believing it in a technical way, it’s still a curiosity about how you’d say that! Another is .. ? Maybe something like: “Another sequence of appearances arising through what seems like an other”?

In appreciation,
Chal

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal

Beautiful looking. You’re clearly seeing the mechanics of thought and that is all that’s needed.

Feeling this kind of relief feels like a gift, personally felt, as though it's some kind of gift received from a vague source. And even before dismissing the personal self belief, and 'personal gift' belief, thoughts come up to say that a dismissing of the treasure of relief is so rude, and bypassing.
…
So just stating, to make more of a habit here: it's just 'relief', as a combo of sensations + thought appearing. And then sometimes lots of added story that say things like 'thank god for the change in brain chemistry and patterns of thought'.

Yes. Relief can feel like a gift because thought instantly tries to create a “receiver” - a subtle “me” who now feels better. And like you said, relief is nothing other than sensation + a story about it. When the label falls away, what remains is just warmth, softness, openness with no owner and no beneficiary. Thoughts saying "it’s rude to dismiss the treasure of relief", is just more thought protecting the idea of a person. There is no dismissing anything, there is simply seeing its real nature. Relief doesn’t disappear when the “someone” disappears, it just stops being personal. When there is no resistance to what is, there is just flow/this. Resistance becomes your best friend as a pointer to thought content that needs to be checked vs DE.

“Look”
“Where is the I in DE”
“What is thought trying to invent here?”
“What remains when thought is removed?”
What is DE?
(Not “what is the DE being experienced right now” .. which came up for a moment to write, thoughts to override the simplicity of simply “What is DE”)
Just checking this out with you — it’s an ok flow?

This is perfect as long as these stay pointers and not practices. Use them lightly for looking , not for achieving or maintaining. This is just the process of thought self-organising around DE.

This might not be valuable to be looking at, perhaps too mental? but could you say thoughts themselves have a nature? The nature of thoughts is to invent and create illusion?

Thought’s nature is extremely simple. A thought appears. It describes something - it gives meaning to it. What it describes has no requirement to be real – it’s a self-organised meaning. You can say it is the "human" experience. Thought isn’t trying to deceive — it just produces symbols. It’s not the villain. Illusion happens only when there is secondary meaning assigned for these symbols. The analogy of a movie spool comes to mind. The sequencing of thoughts creates the illusion of a separate I/Chal very similarly to the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement. When frame rate slows down all the illusion of movement is lost.
The illusion is a by-product of secondary thoughts about simple descriptions.
It happens when a second thought appears and describes the first thought as if it were reality. Not the first thought itself — the interpretation of it. For example:
Primary thought: “a sound.” - it is just a description, followed by
Primary label: thought naming the sound (“bird,” “car”). Then...
Secondary thought: “I am disturbed by that sound.” - this creates “me,” “sound,” “disturbance,” “cause and effect.” The illusion is not the sound, nor the first label. Illusion is the by-product of thought commenting on thought. The moment thought starts describing its own descriptions (not DE), it "manufactures" a doer, a thinker, a feeler, a witness, a center, a timeline, a cause, a meaning… none of which exist in DE.
Illusion comes only when thought begins treating its own content as facts – it becomes self-organised around its own content and not DE. Thus…
Without the secondary thoughts, where is the illusion?
And most importantly…
Is there an observer of the illusion, or is that, too, just part of the illusion?

Actually, what language would you use there that feels clearer, when not using the convention of 'another' or 'other'? Even though of course it’s fine to use convention, while not believing it in a technical way, it’s still a curiosity about how you’d say that! Another is .. ? Maybe something like: “Another sequence of appearances arising through what seems like an other”?

Conventionally you can say “another person,” of course — nothing wrong with that. But if you want a phrasing that reflects what is actually seen in DE, something like this works:
“This insight showed up through that expression,” or “This came through the interaction appearing as ‘you’ and ‘me’.” Not because the conventional language is wrong (icons on your desktop), but because it reminds "you" (thought self-organising) that there is no entity behind the expression. Just life speaking to life, sensation to sensation, thought to thought.
We can still use first-person pronouns to describe “ourselves” and “others” with the same ease we always had, even if such ideas have no more actual meaning than talking about Santa Claus once we learn “he” doesn’t exist either. The separate “self” and “others” are seen to have been nothing more than inference and interpretation, a part of speech in language expression, empty of inherent existence.

Just a reminder…Every time the mind tries to build structure again with secondary thoughts like:
“love should come from someone,” “I should treasure this relief,” “I should understand how this works,” “I should honour the gift,” “I might lose this,” “I need to go back to basics”, or "I need to practice more" just look:
Where is the “I” in DE?
Is there anything here except experience itself?

Love
Rali

[cha0101]

Hi Rali,

There are some really good insights and pointers. I love the part about thoughts - primary and secondary - so much. As always, so much appreciation!

Relief doesn’t disappear when the “someone” disappears, it just stops being personal.

Ok right. this is so key. No denying the experience simply because there is no one experiencing it.

Resistance becomes your best friend as a pointer to thought content that needs to be checked vs DE.

A good way to describe this. Ty!
And trying to get rid of it directly doesn’t work — understanding it like this is a much better experience lol

Thought’s nature is extremely simple. A thought appears. It describes something - it gives meaning to it. What it describes has no requirement to be real – it’s a self-organised meaning.

You can say it is the "human" experience. Thought isn’t trying to deceive — it just produces symbols.

The illusion is a by-product of secondary thoughts about simple descriptions.

It happens when a second thought appears and describes the first thought as if it were reality.

Primary thought vs secondary thought… the secondary thought describes the first as if it were reality.
The 1st thought isn’t an illusion, but illusion is created by the layers of thought.
Thought can directly describe DE without creating illusion. And thought about thought is where the separate self begins to appear as real.
That’s clear, makes sense. Ty!

Without the secondary thoughts, where is the illusion?

Right, no illusion in the primary thought alone.

Is there an observer of the illusion, or is that, too, just part of the illusion?

Just part of the illusion, not separate from.

Conventionally you can say “another person,” of course — nothing wrong with that. But if you want a phrasing that reflects what is actually seen in DE, something like this works:
“This insight showed up through that expression,” or “This came through the interaction appearing as ‘you’ and ‘me’.” Not because the conventional language is wrong (icons on your desktop), but because it reminds "you" (thought self-organising) that there is no entity behind the expression. Just life speaking to life, sensation to sensation, thought to thought.

This is clear. Ty Rali. It did require some slowing down to grasp this one lol

Just a reminder…Every time the mind tries to build structure again with secondary thoughts like:
“love should come from someone,” “I should treasure this relief,” “I should understand how this works,” “I should honour the gift,” “I might lose this,” “I need to go back to basics”, or "I need to practice more" just look:
Where is the “I” in DE?
Is there anything here except experience itself?

There is such a different pace about life when there is focus on DE and observing seeing thought!

So we are away now for the holidays, and back in January sometime. It’s a big trip and with jam-packed days of responsibilities (= sensation + thoughts/beliefs lol). I’ve got my post-it notes and pointers to stay the course :)
I simply can’t thank you enough And, actually, it’s very light-hearted, the feeling around the holidays this year. Investigating DE is the biggest gift.
(I know this is expression here is loaded with self, and time, and cause/effect, etc. But.. I am seeing the words all Santa-esque lol)

Can I check back in, once back home again?

Have a beautiful day, an in appreciation,
Chal

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal

Wonderful looking! There is so much clarity in your reply!

So we are away now for the holidays, and back in January sometime. It’s a big trip and with jam-packed days of responsibilities (= sensation + thoughts/beliefs lol). I’ve got my post-it notes and pointers to stay the course :)
I simply can’t thank you enough And, actually, it’s very light-hearted, the feeling around the holidays this year. Investigating DE is the biggest gift.
(I know this is expression here is loaded with self, and time, and cause/effect, etc. But.. I am seeing the words all Santa-esque lol)

Can I check back in, once back home again?

Do you want to give the checkpoint questions one more go? We can still stay in touch after them, I can still help you on your "journey" here on this thread or outside of LU. What changes is the intensity - you can just contact me when you need me
Enjoy your holiday!
Love
Rali

[cha0101]

Do you want to give the checkpoint questions one more go? We can still stay in touch after them, I can still help you on your "journey" here on this thread or outside of LU.

Hi Rali! Yes for sure, I’d like to look at the checkpoint questions again. I have them here, from before — are they the same ones? Interestingly I’ve been noting down questions as they come up - waiting, and planning to consolidate, and ask you later. In the moment they feel very unclear and “need-to-know” 😄, then sometimes when I revisit past notes or just sit quietly, they kind of dissolve on their own. (But actually, do still have a few lol I'll send later!)

[poppyseed]

Hey Chal
Let's look at your questions first and then do the checkpoint questions. These are for the other guides to see if we've missed anything, so let's make sure that we look everywhere first :)

Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal

I hope your holiday was amazing! Happy new year!
When are you coming back?

Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal

Here are the checkpoint questions as per our conversation. Please answer all questions in full, when you are ready. Please answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer and give examples from your daily life where applicable:

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, 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 experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.

Describe intention & give examples from experience.

Describe free will & give examples from experience.

Describe choice & give examples from experience.

Describe control & give examples from experience.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?
Love
Rali

[cha0101]

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

The illusion of the separate self is a thought. It arises in the moment. There is sensation and a label, and more thought about ‘I’ and ‘me’, ‘my life, ‘my past’ etc.
There is no separate self or ‘me’ or ‘I’ anywhere to be found. And there never was.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

Experience doesn’t refer or point to a separate self, there is no one aware, no one observing, just awareness, seeing, hearing, thought appearing, no one here to do anything.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

How it feels is mostly neutral, seamless. Thoughts arise, sensations happen, even preferences arise. They arise and dissolve. The last few days: what is noticeable is the floating appearance of sounds, the seen. And intensity or vividness of experience. And smoothness. And the occasional awareness of no space or distance.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

Experiencing a whole array of colours and movement, that was closer than breath, with no distance, yet everywhere.

5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.

What gets called a decision is simply an appearance in what is happening. A thought arises: “I’ll reply later.” The body stands up. An email gets sent. Afterward, another thought claims “I did it.” But there is no-one there doing the choosing or acting.
Example: A walk happens instead of working. The body moves toward the door. Shoes are put on. Air is felt. There is a thought saying something as if there is a one choosing.

Describe intention & give examples from experience.

Intention is a thought that appears before or during some action. A thought appears “I’ll go for a walk.”
Example:The body stands up and walking happens. Or a thought appears and nothing happens. Thoughts that appear and imply power or will or agency. Sometimes things happen, sometimes nothing happens. Thoughts just arise. Movements arise or not.

Describe free will & give examples from experience.

Free will is a thought that appears. The thought of free will just arises. There is no chooser or cause and effect. Thoughts just appear, things just happen.
Example: A thought says there is a determination to stop a habit. The habit continues. Or there is an intention to turn left while driving, and movement is to the right instead.

Describe choice & give examples from experience.

Thoughts appear as choice. Thoughts compare and choose. The idea that one thing over another can be chosen through agency is just a thought. Action happens. Thoughts arise that label the experience.
Example: Choosing to sleep at 11pm, and sleep comes later. Thoughts decide an event should be responded to without emotions, emotions happen.

Describe control & give examples from experience.

Control is a thought that comes after something arises, assigned to an event that just arises. Attention stays focused, a thought assigns agency to the focus that just arose on its own.
Examples: a preference to something is maintained, a thought arises that says it will control the desire or aversion.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

Events arise due to ?? Nothing is directed by a self. Life happens, thoughts arise. Sensations appear. Movement happens. Nothing points to a self or a past or a future. Direct experience happens.

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

There is no one to be responsible. No free will, no choice, no agency, no-one making things happen.

6) Anything to add?

Nothing is missing, nothing right or wrong.

[poppyseed]

Hi Chal
Welcome home!

It appears that the Gateless Gate has been crossed, but as you know there is no Gate, no one to cross it, and no end to the journey. It has been such a pleasure to walk beside you! Your openness and willingness to look were simply awesome and made guiding you a joy. Of course it is not necessarily the end of our conversation.

There have been no more questions for you, which means that you will receive an email notifying you of a PM from the forum, inviting you to join LU's Facebook groups. It also has other information that might be of interest to you. I will inbox you my contact details if you want to stay in touch. If you have any questions, just ask, or you can drop a line on your thread here and I will respond.

Your username will change from green to blue. This thread will be moved to the ‘Archive’ section of the forum, but you will be able to access it.

Please don’t forget that this is just the beginning of exploring. It’s the beginning of cleaning up of all sorts of old beliefs. Emotions and feelings can show up to be seen and felt, so don’t stop looking! Please feel free to contact me, so we can have a look together, if you like.

You can also consider being a guide, if you’re willing to explore it, when you feel ready. It can be very rewarding and it help you deepen your understanding.

We have a couple of support groups that are meeting via teleconference, which you will be able to access once your name has turned blue, join in any group discussions on FB, or make use of LU online support groups run by senior guides free of charge.

There are three of those, and they meet on Zoom – do contact the organisers for extra info, links and schedules:
1) Vince runs one on Wednesdays and weekends. Contact: vinceschubert@gmail.com
2) Luchana and Lubo run one on Thursdays. Contact: Luchana at luchanauzunova@gmail.com
3) Ilona holds a monthly meeting. Contact: admin@ilonaciunaite.com

viewforum.php?f=49

You can also explore the ten Fetters, which is a structured way of approaching beliefs:
Kevin Shinilac has instructions on his site https://www.simplytheseen.com/

Pernille Damore and Todd Lent https://www.youtube.com/@TheAwakeningCurriculum

Love
Rali