Greetings!

[poppyseed]

Hi Blanca,
Good.

My mouth is the thing in my head that includes my lips and tongue and teeth… I know they’re there

Without using memory or knowledge, can you feel your teeth? Can you experience your whole mouth as a “thing”?
Or are there only specific sensations (pressure, contact, temperature) and a thought saying “mouth”
Check this directly… When a sensation appears, does it say “this is my mouth”? Or is that a label added afterward?
You said you hear something “from the right.” Check directly.
A sound appears. Does the sound itself contain “right”? Is “right” part of the sound?
Look carefully… Without thinking, is there anything in the raw sound that says “this is coming from the right”? Or is there a (type of) sound plus a thought saying “right”
Now go even closer. Close your eyes. Listen. Don’t answer from knowledge/beliefs about ears or space. Only from what is actually experienced.
Can you find a boundary where “left” ends and “right” begins? Can you locate the sound in space? Or is there just… sound?
For there to be a “right”, there must be a center point, correct? So look! Can you find that center? Can you find a point from which “right” is measured?
Is there a clear center from which directions are defined? (no “seems like”, “feels like” answers please, just reports of what is actually here)
Without using any ideas (mental images) about the body, where is “right” exactly? Where is “mouth”? Can you point to it? What is there the finger is pointing to? Please give actual description not an imaginary one/memories from a mirror (aka just colour).
Or is “right” only meaningful as a concept based on an assumed body location?

I understand what you're saying, but I think the challenge for me is that I don't experience these things as "thoughts." Thoughts to me are words or images that just appear, but the recognition of sound or taste or sight doesn't quite register as a thought much of the time.

Good—look closer. There are two things here:
1.Raw experience (seeing, hearing, sensation – just THIS)
2.Thoughts about it (labels like “sound”, “taste”, “mouth”, “left”, “right”)
The key is not that everything is a thought. The key is: labels are thoughts.
So check! For example…Is there an actual “mouth” found? Or just sensation + the idea of “mouth”?
Without using any labels… is there a mouth, a head, teeth, a right side?
Or just sensation, sound, seeing appearing?
Even further… Forget even the words “sound”, “sensation”, “seeing”… Without using any labels at all, are there different kinds of things happening? Or just… this?
Don’t name it. Don’t divide it.
Can you find separate parts? Can you find edges between anything? Or is all division coming only from thought?
Now look at this… The moment a word appears (“sound”, “body”, “right”, “sensation”), does that word actually divide anything? Or just describe it?
Before any word… Is there anything other than this?
Don’t answer. The answer is not important. Just stay there for a moment.
Like:

This I intellectually understand conceptually, yes.

Is there any other "understanding" than "conceptual/intellectual"??
Is there an "experiential" understanding? Or is there simply DE + thoughts about DE (vs DE + conditioned thoughts)?
Love
Rali

[Blanca]

Without using memory or knowledge, can you feel your teeth? Can you experience your whole mouth as a “thing”?
Or are there only specific sensations (pressure, contact, temperature) and a thought saying “mouth”
Check this directly… When a sensation appears, does it say “this is my mouth”? Or is that a label added afterward?

Yes, I see what you're saying. I don't necessarily experience my whole mouth as a thing. Just pressure, temperature, sensation. And I definitely don't think of it as a mouth automatically. It is a label I apply after I experience something in that area.

A sound appears. Does the sound itself contain “right”? Is “right” part of the sound?
Look carefully… Without thinking, is there anything in the raw sound that says “this is coming from the right”? Or is there a (type of) sound plus a thought saying “right”

The sound itself does not have an inherent rightness. It is sound that my brain labels "to my right." The right (or left) is always relative to my body.

Can you find a boundary where “left” ends and “right” begins?

No, I can't locate a boundary using DE.

Can you locate the sound in space? Or is there just… sound?

I closed my eyes and listened and heard a bird call. I tried to just be with the sound but my brain kept applying a label (left). I couldn't just experience the raw sound without trying to locate it.

Is there a clear center from which directions are defined? (no “seems like”, “feels like” answers please, just reports of what is actually here)

There is sound, and a thought labeling its location.

Without using any ideas (mental images) about the body, where is “right” exactly? Where is “mouth”? Can you point to it? What is there the finger is pointing to? Please give actual description not an imaginary one/memories from a mirror (aka just colour).
Or is “right” only meaningful as a concept based on an assumed body location?

Yes, mouth is just experienced as pressure, temperature, sensation and thought applied after the fact labeling mouth. The right side I can only identify conceptually and when I look for a boundary to delineate left from right, it's only in found in my imagination (thought). Crap, is EVERYTHING a thought???

Even further… Forget even the words “sound”, “sensation”, “seeing”… Without using any labels at all, are there different kinds of things happening? Or just… this?
Don’t name it. Don’t divide it.

This one landed. I am able to see how my mind immediately divides things and how artificial that is! Very cool. :)

[poppyseed]

Hi Blanca
Good — this is very clear:

I see how my mind divides things and how artificial that is

Yes!!! You’ve been using words like “sound”, “sensation”, “thought” and that’s fine – icons on your desktop/ useful for communication. But look carefully … Are those anything more than labels as well?
Don’t go abstract. Before the word “sound” appears, is anything missing? Before the word “thought” appears, what is actually there? Not to figure out, just to see… Do labels create anything new? Or only describe what is already here? Can you find different categories or is that only when words appear?
Which leads me to:

Crap, is EVERYTHING a thought???

I see what you’re pointing to. You’re noticing that without labels, there is no separation.
Good. But now look very carefully at this part… Is the sound a thought? Or is it just… happening?
Listen. Before the word “sound” appears, is anything missing?
A thought appears…“sound”. Does that thought create the experience? Or just describe it?
Same with sensation… Is the sensation a thought? Or is the word “sensation” a thought?
There is no separation in experience itself. But there is a difference between what is happening and thoughts about it.
No separation doesn’t mean “everything is thought.” It means experience is whole and thought divides it afterward
Even this… A thought appears. Before calling it “thought”, what is it?
“Thought” is also just a label. So drop that too. Now look again.
Without using any words at all (not “thought”, not “sound”, not “sensation”) , what is actually here?
No naming. No sorting. No explaining. Just this…
What seems to be “Blanca’s world,” the totality of Blanca’s experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. Whatever view you might have it will not be it – it’s a conditioned way of describing this /whatever is happening, your bubble of reality, you BS backpack. The same words can mean different things to different people or different things in different situations. Ideas are not objects or subjects themselves. Groups of concepts, taken for truth of how things are, become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick, creating an even bigger, more magnificent pyramid of concepts - concepts aquiring meaning within other concepts. You can’t escape the meaning making machine until it’s emptiness (dependent origination) is seen in every aspect. That been said, there is nothing wrong with words and thought content per se. Just it has to be seen that all meaning is empty. Words are not experience. The story about experience is not experience. Otherwise we will be able to get wet from the word waterfall :) Experience is the raw data / indivisible THIS. What is happening underneath the words is what the words are pointing to. BUT... "Thinking" is also THIS - there is no thinking and THIS. Do you see the difference?

Love
Rali

[Blanca]

Are those anything more than labels as well?
Don’t go abstract. Before the word “sound” appears, is anything missing? Before the word “thought” appears, what is actually there?

They are definitely just labels. Before the words sound or thought, there is just the actual thing. The sound and thought in raw form. Though it's harder to make that distinction with thoughts for some reason.

Do labels create anything new? Or only describe what is already here? Can you find different categories or is that only when words appear?

No, labels don't create anything new. they are only description of things. When you say "can you find different categories" do you mean in DE? Not really unless I'm describing things like pressure or temperature. But even then I know they're labels.

Before the word “sound” appears, is anything missing?

I never quite understood what you mean by "is anything missing." Do you mean is anything missing in order for me to experience sound? If so, no, there isn't anything missing.

A thought appears…“sound”. Does that thought create the experience? Or just describe it?
Same with sensation… Is the sensation a thought? Or is the word “sensation” a thought?

I see... you're answering my question about whether everything is a thought. Experience is just experience with or without thought.

“Thought” is also just a label. So drop that too. Now look again.
Without using any words at all (not “thought”, not “sound”, not “sensation”) , what is actually here?

Just the images and words in my mind. When I try to peel that back even more and ask "what's there before the labels images and words" then it's just the experience.

BUT... "Thinking" is also THIS - there is no thinking and THIS. Do you see the difference?

Yes. thinking is also an experience, not separate from it. :)

[poppyseed]

Hi Blanca,
Very clear. Stay right here.
Some fine tuning:

Just the images and words in my mind. When I try to peel that back even more and ask "what's there before the labels images and words" then it's just the experience.

So are there “images in my mind”, “words in my mind” as something separate?
Or is that already labels dividing what is actually seamless?
Before calling anything “image”, “word”, “mind”, what is actually there?

Before the word “sound” appears, is anything missing?

I never quite understood what you mean by "is anything missing." Do you mean is anything missing in order for me to experience sound? If so, no, there isn't anything missing.

Good question! Let’s make this very simple. When I ask this, I do NOT mean “is something needed in order to hear sound?”
I actually point to this...A sound is heard. Before the label “sound” appears… is the experience incomplete in any way? Is something lacking? Does it need a label to be fully what it is?
Does the word “sound” add anything to the experience? Or is the experience already fully itself before the label?
So the question is… Without the label, is anything about the experience missing or is it already whole as it is?
Don’t think about function. Just check the experience itself.

Yes. thinking is also an experience, not separate from it. :)

Good. Now go one step further… Is there THIS and thinking inside it?
Or is thinking not in THIS, but simply THIS appearing as "thinking"?
It’s very subtle, so look carefully.
Is there experience and something inside it (thoughts, images, mind)? Or just THIS, appearing as everything, without parts?
Don’t answer quickly. Look.

Let's review where we are at with the following questions.
What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?
What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?
Is seeking still going on?
Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

Love
Rali

[Blanca]

Hi Rali - My responses below:

So are there “images in my mind”, “words in my mind” as something separate?
Or is that already labels dividing what is actually seamless?
Before calling anything “image”, “word”, “mind”, what is actually there?

No those are labels dividing what is seamless. Those things just are, and my mind says "thought," etc. Ohhhh I see is.... Is that what you mean by "just this"??

A sound is heard. Before the label “sound” appears… is the experience incomplete in any way? Is something lacking? Does it need a label to be fully what it is?
Does the word “sound” add anything to the experience? Or is the experience already fully itself before the label?
So the question is… Without the label, is anything about the experience missing or is it already whole as it is?

No, the experience isn't incomplete by itself. The label doesn't add or subtract anything from the experience. It almost just serves as a barrier between me and it, if I become attached to it.

Is there experience and something inside it (thoughts, images, mind)? Or just THIS, appearing as everything, without parts?

Yes, there is only this. The thoughts are just another "this." My mind artificially divides the experience from the thoughts about it, but thoughts are themselves another experience that occurs within, not outside of direct experience.

What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?

Nothing has changed. Pretty much everything has stayed the same.

What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?

A more refined looking experience. A folding in of thought into experience rather than outside of it.

Is seeking still going on?

Seeking in what sense? The answer is probably still yes, there is, but I wanted to clarify.

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

There isn't any confusion, but nothing has really changed.

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

Not quite.

[poppyseed]

Hi Blanca,
Great! This is honest. Now straight to the point.

Is that what you mean by "just this"??

I like calling it just THIS – no labels, no description, no separation, just pure raw happening. Buddhism speaks of "thusness" or "suchness," referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction.
But don’t take my word for it—check. Without adding anything, without labelling anything, without trying to understand… What is here? Not “experience”, “awareness”, “this” - those are all words.
Before any word appears, what is left?
That. Just ...
Now check… does it have parts? Does it need anything added to it? Is anything missing from it?
If nothing is missing, nothing is separate, nothing is outside of it… Then yes, that’s what is meant by “just this”
Don’t conclude. Don’t try to understand! See it! Look again.

There isn't any confusion, but nothing has really changed.

What were you expecting to change? Did you expect a dramatic shift? A permanent state? A special feeling? Trumpets announcing happily ever after? Is that expectation anything more than a thought?
Change for who? Who/what will benefit of seeing through the illusion of “I”? Where is this observer of past and future that compares before and after, that can see that nothing has really changed?
Check! Is seeing happening? Is hearing happening? Is thinking happening?
Was that ever different?
Seeing through the illusion of a separate self does not change experience. It reveals that there was never a separate self in the first place.
So of course “nothing has changed” – exactly - because nothing was there to begin with. The “I” did not die or disappear – it never existed to start with. What changes is the story/ perception of what is happening. The story doesn’t change automatically. It has to be seen in every aspect until no belief is left unchecked. The way to spot beliefs is through resistance, fear, anger, shame, guilt – all aversions against what is happening, all opinions how THIS should be different than what it IS. Conditioning was not formed in a day and it will not drop in a day either. It can take days, months or years. It has to be seen through in every aspect as it appears (not in theory) through looking what is actually here. BUT just because there is still anger, does that mean there is an I/Blanca/or anything else that this is happening to???
Look again, very simply… Is there a separate self here?
Not yesterday. Not as a concept. Now.
If the answer is no… What exactly is supposed to change?
Is the idea that “something should change”… anything more than another thought? Is that even YOUR expectation? Did you think that thought?
Don’t go to expectations. Look only at what is actually here.

Let's review these expectations once again in the light of the looking that we've done:
1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?
2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?
3. What do you want not to happen?
4. What are you hoping for?
5. What is missing?

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

Not quite.

So let’s stop everything else and look only at this.
Is there a separate entity here in any way, shape, or form that is doing: thinking, seeing, hearing, anything?
Not a feeling of. Not a thought. Something actual.
Look.
You’ve already seen no noticer, no thinker, no decision maker, no boundary, no inside/outside, no center ...
Now answer this directly… If there is no thinker, no observer, no center, where exactly is this “self” supposed to be?
Don’t explain. Point to it.

thoughts are just another ‘this’

Good. So check. The thought “I”, is it anything more than another thought? Or does it point to something real?
Is there a self or just THIS with a thought occasionally saying “I”?
Look and answer plainly.

Love
Rali

[Blanca]

Hi Rali - Hope you're having a lovely day. :)

Without adding anything, without labelling anything, without trying to understand… What is here?

Ah, I see why you say "this." When I look and ask what is here? My automatic response is "all of this." I understand why thusness is used but when I look, it's just this. Thus to me implies causality for some reason.

What were you expecting to change? Did you expect a dramatic shift? A permanent state? A special feeling? Trumpets announcing happily ever after? Is that expectation anything more than a thought?

No, I understand enough to know there will be nothing dramatic. I won't lie and say that there are NO expectations. But I think I what I expected was more subtle. A gradual eroding of dualistic experience. A less calcified sense of me as a separate thing.

Change for who? Who/what will benefit of seeing through the illusion of “I”? Where is this observer of past and future that compares before and after, that can see that nothing has really changed?

If the I is an illusion, then there is no one to receive a benefit. Nor is there an observer of past and future, etc.

Is seeing happening? Is hearing happening? Is thinking happening?
Was that ever different?

Yes, it's happening. It wasn't ever different, only the actual looking.

BUT just because there is still anger, does that mean there is an I/Blanca/or anything else that this is happening to???

No, it just seems to make it harder to look and see that.

If the answer is no… What exactly is supposed to change?
Is the idea that “something should change”… anything more than another thought? Is that even YOUR expectation? Did you think that thought?

I get very confused because you said "What changes is the story/ perception of what is happening." So it seems like what is changing is that. But yes, I recognize that the idea that something is supposed to "happen" or "change" is itself an idea.

1. What will be different when you realize there’s no separate self?

I will experience a shift in perception that allows me to see the self as an illusion persistently.

2. What do you expect to happen as a result of this?

If I'm being honest, an erosion of suffering. Those stories we tell ourselves seem to contribute to a lot of pain.

3. What do you want not to happen?

I do not want to abandon this practice because of frustration.

4. What are you hoping for?

The persistent and steady seeing through the illusion of the self. Right now, looking takes a conscious effort.

5. What is missing?

I genuinely don't know.

Is there a separate entity here in any way, shape, or form that is doing: thinking, seeing, hearing, anything?

When I inquire using direct experience, I don't find an entity. Only experiences. But they feel contained in my body, so it's hard not to do I-making and my-making.

If there is no thinker, no observer, no center, where exactly is this “self” supposed to be?

That would make the self an illusion created by the sum of experience.

Good. So check. The thought “I”, is it anything more than another thought? Or does it point to something real?
Is there a self or just THIS with a thought occasionally saying “I”?

When I check, yes, there is only this with a thought occassionally saying I. But checking still feels like a deliberate act that has to happen.

This one was a tough one.

[poppyseed]

Hi Blanca
Good. Stay very simple now.

I get very confused because you said "What changes is the story/ perception of what is happening." So it seems like what is changing is that. But yes, I recognize that the idea that something is supposed to "happen" or "change" is itself an idea.

Good. This is subtle—and important to clean up.
Look carefully what that means. Seeing is happening, hearing is happening, sensation is happening… Has that ever changed?
Now compare:
Before - thoughts said “this is happening to me”
Now - thoughts may say something different
So what changed? The experience? OR the story about the experience?
Check directly! Is experience itself different from before?
Or is it the same seeing, hearing, sensing with different thoughts appearing about it?
Nothing real changes. Only the interpretation (thoughts) shifts.
So when you say: “something should change”, look… Is that about experience or about the story becoming different?
Without referring to thought…, is there any problem here? Is anything lacking?

checking still feels like a deliberate act that has to happen

Look carefully. A thought appears: “I need to check” / “I am looking”. Is that doing anything? Or is it just another thought? Can a thought initiate anything or just describes what is ALREADY happening?
Check this directly… Before that thought appears, is seeing already happening? Is experience already happening? So what is “checking”? Is it something you do or just a thought about looking, appearing within what is already happening?

it feels contained in my body

Can you find an actual boundary of that “container”? Where exactly does experience stop?
Or is there a sensation plus a thought saying “inside my body”?
Without referring to thought, is there an inside and an outside?
Or just… this?

I expect persistent seeing

Even when you are not “checking”… does a self appear?
Or is it always just THIS with thoughts about “me” sometimes appearing?
Is there a self that needs to be seen through continuously or no self at all ever?
Don’t try to maintain anything. See what has always been the case.

“Seeing”/”looking” probably won't be 24/7. There's likely to be a "honeymoon period," and then what we call, "got it, lost it," as untrue beliefs come up to be questioned. This can go on for months & years. This initial shift is irreversible, just as we can never go back to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
First-person pronouns are still used to describe “ourselves” 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” is seen to have been nothing more than inference and interpretation. We then see how the truth has been right under our nose all along: there’s simply nobody (t)here! Because there never was a “self” in the first place, no longer believing that we have or are a separate “self” is not a destructive or negative experience: there is no ‘self’ that died, and there is no new ‘self’ that takes its place. As a result of getting this first irreversible understanding of who we are(n’t), there is a joyfulness, an initial cleansing of wrong views, and an illumination of what is (and is not) happening within and around us. Though this illumination is of a preliminary nature, it nevertheless constitutes a significant re-ordering of how we perceive ourselves and our place in the world.

When someone we know dies, it takes time for that to "sink in". It's not that we don't believe that the person has died. It is just they are still part of our lives - we open the wardrobe and their clothes are still there, we walk in the park and we remember when we used to do it together. It takes time to readjust our lives to living without them. That process of “sinking in” can be observed in many other situations – like being diagnosed with a life changing disease, losing a job that we had for a long time etc. Even though the change is sudden and quick, it can be perceived as a long process – it can feel as though something is still sinking in, or hasn’t yet sunk in.

The point applies equally to habitual patterns of thought, which similarly reflect how our lives are organised. When the established patterns of thought are disturbed, thought cannot adapt to all of this in an instant, simply by revising all of our old beliefs. Much of the old organisation lingers on, in the guise of a world that we continue to experience and in habitual patterns of thought and activity that our surroundings continue to elicit. That very much applies to seeing the illusion of an “I” - it’s quite a sudden change with a relatively long process of adapting to this change. The recognition of no self is just the beginning of seeing life and “yourself” in a new light. It takes time to clean up all old beliefs and conditioning.

To “deal” with this, question everything, and little by little you will notice changes in everyday life: less judgment, more openness; less thinking, more appreciation; less story, more being; less structure, more flow. You will notice that some habitual thoughts no longer arise. The story changes in a way that allows more space for simply being.
There might still be expectations, confusion, and doubt. That’s quite normal at this stage. You may be swaying between “I get it” and “I don’t get it.” You may be thinking that this is not enough, that some experiences need to happen, that you should be happy and blissful all the time. When these thoughts arise, bring the focus to what is present here now. Just THIS. And look again: what is here that wants THIS to be different (including the presence of doubtful thoughts)?

Watch this, please:

https://youtu.be/vJQcD588g2w

Love
Rali

[Blanca]

Hi Rali - Apologies for the delay. I had a couple of deadlines at work that I had to get through.

Thank you for sending the video. It was interesting and helped me see a bit more.

So what changed? The experience? OR the story about the experience?

Ha! I see what you mean! The experience didn't change, just my thoughts about it.

Is experience itself different from before?
Or is it the same seeing, hearing, sensing with different thoughts appearing about it?

I almost wrote in response "well, yes the experience is different because the thoughts are different." And then I stopped myself and zoomed out a bit. It doesn't matter what the thoughts are (the content). The thought is just another object that occurs along with the seeing/hearing/tasting, etc. So no, the experience doesn't change.

So when you say: “something should change”, look… Is that about experience or about the story becoming different?
Without referring to thought…, is there any problem here? Is anything lacking?

So when you say "without referring to thought," you mean without engaging with the content of thoughts?? And seen through that lens, no there isn't a problem, nor is there anything lacking. Everything is just as it is. The sensing / tasting / thinking, etc. is just happening and it doesn't seem like it really matters what it is they're sensing / tasting / thinking. Oh my god is that why equanimity is an important value in Buddhism?????

I can certainly see how that would be INCREDIBLY FREEING.

“I need to check” / “I am looking”. Is that doing anything? Or is it just another thought? Can a thought initiate anything or just describes what is ALREADY happening?

Ha! No! It's just another thought! I would be seeing whether a thought labels it seeing or not!

Can you find an actual boundary of that “container”? Where exactly does experience stop?
Or is there a sensation plus a thought saying “inside my body”?
Without referring to thought, is there an inside and an outside?
Or just… this?

The boundary can't be found using DE, only via thought. But this one is still a tough one for me.

Even when you are not “checking”… does a self appear?
Or is it always just THIS with thoughts about “me” sometimes appearing?
Is there a self that needs to be seen through continuously or no self at all ever?

A self only appears when I think it. In fact, most times, I don't consciously think about my self as a concrete thing. Most times I'm just seeing, thinking, hearing, etc. If I don't engage with the content of my thoughts, "I" never really appear!

The separate “self” is seen to have been nothing more than inference and interpretation.

This one really landed.

Even though the change is sudden and quick, it can be perceived as a long process – it can feel as though something is still sinking in, or hasn’t yet sunk in.

Rali! I think I just got a glimpse!!!

It's funny... I read this post in the morning and let it marinade in the background, knowing I'd respond when I had enough time to give a proper response without rushing (if I'm ever delayed, that's nearly always why). Later in the day I found myself watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A
and when it got roughly 36 minutes in, I found myself thinking, OH MY GOD THAT'S WHAT RALI IS SAYING! RIGHT DOWN TO THE ICON METAPHOR!

Sorry I keep shouting but this is so very, very, very cool.

Your friend,

Blanca (I think)

[poppyseed]

Hi Blanca
Good. Now slow down.

I think I just got a glimpse!!!

Look carefully. What exactly was “glimpsed”? Something new? Something different? Or simply what has always been the case?
Is there a special state or just seeing, hearing, sensation, thought as always?

A self only appears when I think it

Does a self actually appear… or is there a thought saying “I” with nothing behind it?
When the thought “I” is not there is something missing or is everything still fully present? Does it contribute in any way to the actual experience, or is just a way of describing what is happening
Some languages even don't have to use the pronoun "I" all the time - there are different verb forms which show where the action is happening :). But just because the pronoun is there does a self appear or just more thoughts about an "I"? Just a thought pattern. Here is where the difference between an illusion and delusion shows clearly - an illusion is known to just look as something else, a delusion is when it is believed that the word "I" points to something real.
Now the most important point… You felt a “glimpse.”
Did anything actually change or did a thought drop for a moment?
Is there, anywhere a separate entity, a center, a “Blanca” that exists independently of thought?
Not earlier / as memory, NOW.
Notice the excitement, notice the doubt, but just look and answer plainly.

The boundary can't be found using DE, only via thought. But this one is still a tough one for me.

Well, this thought has been around "forever" so it will take a bit more looking to be fully rejected as nonsense. Keep on looking what is actually here and it will sink in eventually... Keep on playing with the pointers for "body" in the beginning of our conversation and eventually it will become just an "icon" :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A
and when it got roughly 36 minutes in, I found myself thinking, OH MY GOD THAT'S WHAT RALI IS SAYING! RIGHT DOWN TO THE ICON METAPHOR!

Yup. I love his clarity!

Oh my god is that why equanimity is an important value in Buddhism?????

Maybe. But don’t go there. That’s thought trying to connect it to Buddhism, explain it, make sense of it. Look instead! Without any explanation, without any framework, is there a problem here?
You said:

it doesn’t seem to matter what is being sensed/thought

Check that. Does experience itself resist anything? Or is resistance only in thought?
Equanimity is just a word. Don’t turn this into an idea. Look!
Is anything being rejected? Is anything being held onto? Or is everything simply… appearing?
Stay here silently - no philosophy, no conclusions. Just this.
Love
Rali (your friend ;) )

[Blanca]

Well thanks for ruining the fun, Rali!

I'm kidding. Yes, I know I need to be very careful not to read too much into the experience.

Look carefully. What exactly was “glimpsed”? Something new? Something different? Or simply what has always been the case?
Is there a special state or just seeing, hearing, sensation, thought as always?

I would say that it was more like I could momentarily see something that had been partially obscured. Like wiping smudge off my lenses to see a tree in the distance better. The tree was always there, the lens is always there, but thoughts distorted or obscured them.

Does a self actually appear… or is there a thought saying “I” with nothing behind it?
When the thought “I” is not there is something missing or is everything still fully present? Does it contribute in any way to the actual experience, or is just a way of describing what is happening

No, what I meant was that the idea of an "I" is constructed only when I think about it. But it's definitely just a thought. And no it doesn't contribute anything to the experience. If anything, it is often a detraction.

Did anything actually change or did a thought drop for a moment?
Is there, anywhere a separate entity, a center, a “Blanca” that exists independently of thought?

Nothing changed, and a thought did drop for a moment. All the thoughts about "I" or the nature of reality as one being centered on me with fixed objects and a subject. And no, using DE, I can't find a separate entity or center named Blanca beyond a concept. What I think of as myself is a concept. Wow, that just hit me.

That’s thought trying to connect it to Buddhism, explain it, make sense of it. Look instead! Without any explanation, without any framework, is there a problem here?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Check that. Does experience itself resist anything? Or is resistance only in thought?

oooohhhh that's true. Although resistance can sometimes (or even often) be a feeling (which you said is thought with body sensation).

Is anything being rejected? Is anything being held onto? Or is everything simply… appearing?
Stay here silently - no philosophy, no conclusions. Just this.

I will!

[poppyseed]

Hi Blanca,
Good. However, there is still something lingering here:

I would say that it was more like I could momentarily see something that had been partially obscured. Like wiping smudge off my lenses to see a tree in the distance better.

Let’s check that. For something to be “obscured”, there must be something seeing, that sometimes sees clearly, and sometimes doesn’t, right? So look:
Where is the one that is seeing? Can you find an observer? If there is no observer…, who is seeing more clearly? Who had the smudge? Who wiped it away?
Did anything actually become clearer? Or did a thought about “I / me / reality” drop with nothing and no one behind it?
If there is no observer, nothing can be obscured, nothing can be revealed.
There is only THIS always as it is, including the self-organising thoughts. So what can possibly be there to have a clearer view? Or the “clarity” is just thoughts being about DE instead of rotating around old patterns. Do you see the difference? Do you see how the analogy of “smudged lens” still hides an idea of an observer / a witness for whom this is happening??
So… Is there someone seeing or just seeing (whatever is happening with thoughts about DE)?
Don’t answer from logic. Look.
Furthermore... Is there something being obscured? Or is that already a story explaining what just happened?
Did anything become clearer? Or did a thought drop… revealing what was never hidden?
If something was “obscured”, where was it hidden?
Or is it simply THIS was always as it is and thoughts were saying something else?

Although resistance can sometimes (or even often) be a feeling (which you said is thought with body sensation).

What do YOU see? Don’t take my words for truth! That “feeling”, does it resist anything by itself? Or is there a sensation plus a thought saying “this shouldn’t be happening”?
Without the thought, is there resistance? Or just a sensation? Does the sensation say in any way that it is a “resistance”? Or that is a conditioned label?
Explore the sensation. Think of something that is causing “resistance”. Then drop the story and stay with the actual sensation. Notice it, observe what it does. It’s like the sensation is continually changing. It moves around, it becomes more intense, it becomes less intense; always changing its shape. Go deeply into that sensation (i.e. the vibration)
How old is that sensation? When you say it is often there, you’re referring to time. That means you are referring to thought. Refer to the sensation.
How long has this current sensation been present? Just now. Right?
If you had to describe this sensation, how would you describe it? Is it describable?
It’s morphing, it’s changing, it’s vibrating, but the vibrating is itself a sensation.
Is it really unpleasant? Is the actual sensation itself unpleasant, or is unpleasantness added by thought?
Just leave your thoughts in the background, turn the volume down and refer directly to the sensation.
If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘resistance’?
Is there any inherent resistance in the sensation itself?

Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘resistance’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?

Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘resistance’)…what is the difference between them?
A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?

Report back on what you found when doing this exercise.
Love
Rali