What is real?

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla
Beautiful. This is quite clear with a bit of uncertainty.

Does it point to something actual here now?

No.

Yes! Otherwise we would get wet every time we think of a waterfall :)

It isn’t known. Yet, why am I convinced, I wonder.

Good. Don’t go into “why.” “Why” will invite explanation. Look directly at being convinced.
What is “being convinced” in direct experience?
Is it a sensation? A feeling of familiarity? A tightening? A certainty-thought? A repeated mental image? A thought saying “this really happened”? A thought saying “this is true”?
Can a “convinced one” be found?
Or is there sensation, image, thought— and then thought says “I am convinced”?

Thoughts about the past seem to have more reality. I hardly ever think about the future. Thoughts about the future are just imagination.

Memory may feel more real than future-imagination. Good. Let that be so.
But does “feels more real” make the past actual here now?
What is “real-feeling” made of? Sensation? Familiarity? Certainty? Emotional charge? Repetition?
Does the sensation itself say “this is past”?
Does the image itself say “this happened”?
Does familiarity prove anything?
Or does thought add the label “memory,” “past,” “real,” “mine”?

Now look at this very simply:
A memory appears. A future-image appears. In direct experience, both appear NOW (answer to my previous "WHEN do they appear" :) ).
One thought says “past.” Another thought says “future.” Another thought says “the past is more real.”
Can the past itself be found?
Can the future itself be found?
Can time be found outside thought?

Now this was also very clear:

Thought doesn’t even say I understand. Meaning simply arises, and body-map sensation appears.

Yes. Meaning appears by itself. No understander. So check the same with belief:
Belief appears. Certainty appears. Familiarity appears. Body-map sensation appears.
Is there a believer?
And with conviction… Conviction appears.
Is there someone convinced?
This is the same pattern everywhere:
Memory appears — thought says “my past.”
Meaning appears — thought says “I understand.”
Certainty appears — thought says “I know.”
Sensation appears — thought says “this is true.”
Thought appears — thought says “I think.”
But is the “I” ever found?

Now look again at the difference between general thought, memory, and future thought.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

Memory thought has images added to it.

But does every memory have images? Can a memory appear only as words, or as sensation, or as a feeling of familiarity?
And can a general thought also have images?
For example: elephant, red car, your kitchen
Images may appear, but these are not necessarily “memory.”
So is image what makes a thought a memory?

Now look at a future thought.
A future thought may also have images, sensations, words, and expectation (aka thoughts).
So what exactly makes one thought “memory” and another “future”?
Is “past” found in the image?
Is “future” found in the image?
Does the image itself say “this already happened”?
Does the image itself say “this will happen”?
Or does thought add the label “past” or “future”?
Look at these three:
1. A thought about breakfast this morning.
2. A thought about dinner tomorrow.
3. A thought about a pink elephant.
What are they made of – words, images, sensations, meaning, familiarity?
Now check:
Is the “past-ness” of breakfast directly found?
Is the “future-ness” of dinner directly found?
Is the “imaginary-ness” of the elephant directly found?
Or are these classifications added by thought?
So maybe the raw material is the same: thought, image, sensation, meaning, familiarity. Then thought labels one bundle “memory,” another “future,” another “imagination.”
Can any actual difference be found outside thought-label?
This is the key:
Memory is not the past. Future-thought is not the future. General thought is not a separate category found in direct experience. These are labels thought gives to present appearances.
Look there.

So stay with this:
What is the difference between memory, general thought, and imagination in direct experience?
Not according to content, belief, or familiarity - only in direct experience.
What is memory made of?
What is imagination made of?
What makes one seem more real?
Is the one who is convinced found?

Love
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali,

Good. Don’t go into “why.” “Why” will invite explanation. Look directly at being convinced.
What is “being convinced” in direct experience?

A mental image appears, then a thought, saying this is convincing, followed by a familiar sensation.

Can a “convinced one” be found?

No. Thought and sensation just appears without an owner.

Or is there sensation, image, thought— and then thought says “I am convinced”?

Yes.

But does “feels more real” make the past actual here now?

No, it doesn't.

What is “real-feeling” made of? Sensation? Familiarity? Certainty? Emotional charge? Repetition?

There's a stronger emotional charge to the sensation and familiarity as well.

Does the sensation itself say “this is past”?

No

Does the image itself say “this happened”?

No.

Does familiarity prove anything?

No, but it's good to be aware of it.

Or does thought add the label “memory,” “past,” “real,” “mine”?

Yes!

A memory appears. A future-image appears. In direct experience, both appear NOW (answer to my previous "WHEN do they appear" :) ).

Of course. It's so simple, yet I didn't realise they appear now.

Can the past itself be found?

No. Thought adds this happened in the past to mental images and sensation.

Can the future itself be found?

No

Can time be found outside thought?

no.

Is there a believer?

There isn't. Thought says this is true.

Is there someone convinced?

No. Thought says I know.

But is the “I” ever found?

Again and again, nothing is found, except for a faded inner voice and subtle body-map sensations.

Can a memory appear only as words, or as sensation, or as a feeling of familiarity?

Yes, those are memory too. Something heard or experienced before that is repeated in the present.

And can a general thought also have images?

yes

So is image what makes a thought a memory?

No. Repeated experience makes a thought a memory.
How is it known that the thought has been experienced before, then. I think memory just appears, just like with meaning.

Is “past” found in the image?

no

Is “future” found in the image?

no

Does the image itself say “this already happened”?

no

Does the image itself say “this will happen”?

no

Or does thought add the label “past” or “future”?

yes

What are they made of – words, images, sensations, meaning, familiarity?

1. A thought about breakfast this morning.

Images and sensations.

2. A thought about dinner tomorrow.

First nothing, then a thought.

3. A thought about a pink elephant.
An image and a sensation (of laughing)

Is the “past-ness” of breakfast directly found?

no

Is the “future-ness” of dinner directly found?

no

Is the “imaginary-ness” of the elephant directly found?

no.

Or are these classifications added by thought?

Yes :)

Can any actual difference be found outside thought-label?

no.

What is the difference between memory, general thought, and imagination in direct experience?

In DE there are no differences between them. Thought adds the label when either of those appear.

What is memory made of?

Mental images, thoughts and sensations.

What is imagination made of?

Mental images and sensations. Thoughts appear as well, but thoughts are less certain.

What makes one seem more real?

In DE they are the same.
With memory, the thoughts judge the mental images, whereas in imagination thoughts don't judge, they speculate. There's less certainty. Thought doesn't say 'this happened' or 'this will happen'. With imagination thoughts say 'what if'

Is the one who is convinced found?

no.

Thank you.
Love:
Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla,
Beautiful. This is getting very clean.

Memory and future appear NOW.

Yes. That’s it. Past and future are not found. Time is not found outside thought.
Memory is not the past. Future-thought is not the future. There are present images, sensations, words, familiarity, certainty, emotional charge — and thought labels them “memory,” “past,” “future,” “imagination.”
Now look carefully at this:

Repeated experience makes a thought a memory.

Is “repeated experience” found in direct experience now?
Or is there a present image, present sensation, present familiarity, and thought saying “this happened before”?
Can “before” be found? Can repetition be found? Can the previous occurrence be found?
Or is “repeated” another thought-label appearing now?
Same here:

Something heard or experienced before that is repeated in the present.

Can “before” be directly found? Or is “before” thought-content?
A song lyric appears. A childhood image appears. A smell appears. Thought says “I know this,” “this happened before,” “this is memory/this is familiar”
But is the past actually present? Or only a present appearance labelled “past”?
Now this:

With memory, the thoughts judge the mental images, whereas in imagination thoughts don’t judge, they speculate.

Good observation. Now check it more simply.
What is “judging” in direct experience? A thought appearing? A sensation?
A label like “real,” “true,” “mine,” “past”?
What is “speculating”? A thought appearing? A future-image?
A label like “maybe,” “what if,” “could happen”?
Is there an actual judge? Is there an actual speculator?
Or are judging and speculating just thought-forms appearing now?
So maybe the difference between memory and imagination is not in the raw material.
Both can include: image, word, sensation, meaning, familiarity, emotional charge, certainty or uncertainty. Then thought adds: “this happened”, “this may happen”, “this is real”, “this is imagined”, “this is mine”. But can any actual past-ness, future-ness, realness, or imagined-ness be found outside thought?
Now stay with the main cut:
When thought says “this happened to me,” what is actually here – image, sensation., thought (familiarity, certainty)?
Is “this happened” found? Is “to me” found?
Is the one who remembers found?
For next time, take one emotionally charged memory — not too intense — and look only at what is present now. No story. No analysis.
What appears – image, words, sensation?
Does any of it prove a past?
Does any of it prove a “me” who lived it?
Is the remember-er found?

And now look at this directly:
Can a thought think?
A thought appears. Then another thought appears. Then thought says, “I am thinking,” or “this thought led to that thought.”
But can the first thought think the second thought?
Can a thought choose the next thought?
Can a thought understand another thought?
Can a thought know what it means?
Can a thought do anything at all?
Or is thought simply appearing?
Look at the thought: “I am thinking.”
Is that thought thinking?
Or is it just a thought appearing?
Now look at: “This happened before.”/ “This is memory.” / “This is true.” / “I know this.”
Do any of these thoughts know anything?
Or are they appearances, followed by meaning, sensation, familiarity, and more thought?
So check:
Can thought think, know, choose, remember, or control?
Or are thinking, knowing, remembering, choosing, and controlling all labels added by thought to what is simply appearing?

Love
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali,

Is “repeated experience” found in direct experience now?

No. There is a mental image, let's say, then sensation of familiarity appears and thought comments 'this has happened before'.

Or is there a present image, present sensation, present familiarity, and thought saying “this happened before”?

exactly.

Can “before” be found?

no.

Can repetition be found?

no.

Can the previous occurrence be found?

No

Or is “repeated” another thought-label appearing now?

Yes.

Can “before” be directly found?

No.

Or is “before” thought-content?

Yes. Thought plus sensation.

But is the past actually present?

No. It cannot be.

Or only a present appearance labelled “past”?

Yes.

What is “judging” in direct experience? A thought appearing? A sensation?

A thought appearing.

A label like “real,” “true,” “mine,” “past”?

It's more like thought adds a certain label to the mental image. This was a good experience or an unpleasant one. So mental image appears, sensation appears, and thought appears with a labeling of the mental image and sensation.

What is “speculating”? A thought appearing? A future-image?

A mental image, then sensation (unfamiliar, new, fresh), then thought adds 'I wish this will happen, I hope for this, but I don't think I deserve it. '

A label like “maybe,” “what if,” “could happen”?

yes

Is there an actual judge?

No

Is there an actual speculator?

no

Or are judging and speculating just thought-forms appearing now?

exactly

But can any actual past-ness, future-ness, realness, or imagined-ness be found outside thought?

no, it's impossible.

When thought says “this happened to me,” what is actually here – image, sensation., thought (familiarity, certainty)?

Mental image, sensation and thought labels then familiar and certain.

Is “this happened” found?

No, it's not certain. Thought add this to the mental image, words and sensations.

Is “to me” found?

no

Is the one who remembers found?

no

What appears – image, words, sensation?

Mental videos and strong sensations (emotions)

Does any of it prove a past?

No.

Does any of it prove a “me” who lived it?

No.

Is the remember-er found?

No.

Can a thought think?

No. it just appears. It cannot do anything.

But can the first thought think the second thought?

No.

Can a thought choose the next thought?

No.

Can a thought understand another thought?

No.

Can a thought know what it means?

No, it cannot.

Can a thought do anything at all?

no.

Is that thought thinking?

No.

Or is it just a thought appearing?

Yes.

Now look at: “This happened before.”/ “This is memory.” / “This is true.” / “I know this.”Do any of these thoughts know anything?

No. They don't contain meaning inferent to them.

Or are they appearances, followed by meaning, sensation, familiarity, and more thought?

Yes.

Or is thought simply appearing?

Yes.

Can thought think, know, choose, remember, or control?

No. They just are.

Or are thinking, knowing, remembering, choosing, and controlling all labels added by thought to what is simply appearing?

Yes, exactly.

Great pointers. Thank you.
Love,
Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla
Beautiful.

Can thought think?

No. It just appears. It cannot do anything.

Yes. Thought, meaning, sensation, familiarity, certainty and more thought just appear. Then thought says: “I think.” / “I know.” / “I remember.” / “I choose.” / “I understand.”/ “I control.” / “This happened to me.” But when checked, no thinker, knower, remember-er, chooser, controller, or one it happened to is found.
Even meaning… does anything has any meaning before thought assigns such to it (just THIS)?
Meaning is useful – icons on your desktop (a mail box icon is used to send a email)– but essentially empty (a mail box with no actual letter in it - just 0's and 1's). Thought is self-organised around the direct experience, labelling it (the icons), but at some point becomes organised around itself (thoughts about other thoughts). That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts – thoughts about thoughts (secondary and third thoughts). That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. Remember my example with chat GPT and how meaning is created there. Can you see the similarities?

Now don’t rush anywhere with this. Let it marinate in ordinary life.
For the next few days, don’t do long inquiry sessions unless they happen naturally. Just notice the claiming in real time. There is what is happening, there is labelling of what is happening (meaning/icons) , for example there is a strong sensation in my arm . And then there are secondary thoughts about labelling (e.g. it's very unpleasant and hurtful) and further (third level) thoughts about thoughts about the labelled experience (e.g. I managed to hurt myself, why do I always do that, or it always happens to me). This is where the caliming is happening.

When thought says: “I decided.” / “I should have known.” / “I remember.” / “I’m hurt.” / “I’m doing well.” / “I’m confused.” / “I need to get this.”, pause gently and check:
What is actually here?
What is thought claiming?
Is the claimed “I” found?
At this point, it will be a good DE exercise to get out for an actual walk in nature and observe interconnectedness. See how ALL is moving interdependently, including thinking and the senses. Hold these questions in mind:
Is there anything that is separate from everything else?
Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought? Is that interdependent movement outside of you? Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?
Is there an owner of being?
Are there others? Is there an “I” in others?
Is there a “you”?
No need to stop anything. No need to maintain clarity. No need to be in direct experience all the time. Thought may claim. Sensation may tighten. The old familiar “me” may appear. That is fine. Just check:
Is it anything more than thought, sensation, image, familiarity, and ownership-claim?
And one more thing:
When clarity appears, does anyone own it?
When confusion appears, does anyone own it?
Report what is noticed from daily life.
Love
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali:),

does anything has any meaning before thought assigns such to it (just THIS)?

No. Before thought (meaning) arises, there are just sensations, seeing, hearing, etc.
What comes to my mind more and more is that thought and meaning seem to be different appearances. Words don't have meaning inherent to them. It seems to me, that meaning just arises, and I'm my experience meaning seems to relate less and less to the words that arise.

What is thought claiming?
Is the claimed “I” found?

I haven't been able to use these pointers. It is hard to observe thoughts to the extent of catching claiming. I find it much easier to question who does this thought belong to or return to the simplicity of DE.

I really enjoyed being in nature and pondering on the questions. I was sitting in nature most of the time, instead of walking. It came more natural.

Is there anything that is separate from everything else?

No, everything is together and made from the same substance. Including the body. Staying with this notion brought a lot of peace and a sense of resting in this "all togetherness".

Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought?

There is no border between body and everything else. Thoughts say 'it' is separate from the surroundings. Pondering on this question also brought a sense of peace.

Is that interdependent movement outside of you?

No, it isn't. This one took a bit longer to see. Sensation is the strongest DE for me, to see the interconnectedness and that the experience doesn't belong to me. With hearing and seeing, it is harder to see those qualities.

Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?

no

Is there an owner of being?

no.sensing doesn't belong to anybody.

Are there others?

No.

Is there an “I” in others?

This one brought a DE of tightening, a bit of fear and anger. Thoughts claimed that there is, and that others behave in unpredictable ways, which can be unsettling.
I kept returning to this pointer, and I know with logic that there isn't, but DE still brings up strong sensations and thoughts.

Is there a “you”?

No. Body map sensation appears less and less when asking this question. Openness comes easier and quicker.

When clarity appears, does anyone own it?

No.

When confusion appears, does anyone own it?

No. This brought a DE of peace, relaxation.

Thank you!
Love:
Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla,
Beautiful. This is very clear:

When clarity appears, does anyone own it?

No.

When confusion appears, does anyone own it?

No.

Yes. Clarity appears. Confusion appears. Peace appears. Tightening appears. No owner is found.

Now let’s sharpen a few places.

Everything is together and made from the same substance.

Good as a description, but look carefully.
Is “same substance” found in direct experience? Or is that a thought-label describing the absence of separation?
What is actually here? Seeing, hearing, sensation, smell, taste, thought (just indescribable meaningless THIS without the DE labels).
Is “substance” found apart from these?
Is “all togetherness” found as a thing?
Or is there simply no boundary found?
Don’t make “all togetherness” into a new resting place. Peace may come with it, but peace is also just appearing.

It does take a bit of slowing down.

Yes, slowing down may happen. But is there someone who slows down? A manager? A controler of "attention"?
Or does the question appear, attention/description shifts, sensations become clearer, thought quiets, and thought says “I slowed down”?

Is there an ‘I’ in others?

This one brought a DE of tightening, a bit of fear and anger. Thoughts claimed that there is, and that others behave in unpredictable ways, which can be unsettling.

Do not answer this with logic. Logic is thought. Reasoning is thought. “I know there is no I in others because I saw it before” is thought. So don’t use logic to convince yourself. Answer only from direct experience. We’ve already looked at “others” directly, and you saw clearly: there are colour, sound, sensation. Thought says “person,” “other,” “inside,” “they have a mind,” “they can hurt me.”
But in direct experience, can an “I” in them be found? Does the sensation appearing itself say “others have an I”?
You can go and revisit the pointers if it’s still sticky.
Can an inner “I” inside Lilla be found?
Can a controller inside Lilla be found?
Can a thinker inside Lilla be found?
If no “I” is found here, what exactly is being assumed to be inside others?

Now look at this phrase:

DE still brings up strong sensations and thoughts.

Does DE bring up strong sensations? Or does sensation appear, and thought labels it “strong”?
Does sensation itself say “strong”? Does it say “too much”? Does it say “fear”? Does it say “anger”?
Does it say “because of others”? Does it say “others are unpredictable”? Does it say “I can be hurt”?
Does it say “I need protection”? Or are those labels added by thought?
What is actually here? Sensation, thought, maybe heat, pressure, tightening, movement, image, sound. (even these are labels). Then thought says “strong,” “fear,” “anger,” “others,” “unpredictable.”
So stay with the raw sensation.
Before the label “strong,” what is it?
Before the label “fear,” what is it?
Before the label “others are unpredictable,” what is here?
And while sensation is present, check:
Is an “I” in others found?
Is an “I” here found?
Or are there sensations and thoughts claiming both?
No need to erase fear or make others safe. No need to deny practical unpredictability. In ordinary life, people may behave in unexpected ways. Boundaries may happen. Caution may happen. Protection may happen.
But in direct experience, is there an actual “I” in them?
And is there an actual “I” here who is threatened?
NB! But notice this too… The story about others is not “out there.” The interpretation is here. The separation is here. The expectation is here. The fear-image is here. The memory-image is here.
The thought “they are unpredictable” is here. The thought “they can hurt me” is here.
All of that appears in direct experience as thought, image, and sensation. So when thought says “others are the problem,” look carefully:
Where is that story appearing? Here. Not outside, not inside.
The whole “me and others” bundle is carried as thought-content: memory, expectation, interpretation, separation, protection, threat, hope, disappointment. It is like a backpack of old labels and assumptions that gets placed over colour, sound, movement, and sensation. But in direct experience, what is actually found?
Does colour say “other”?
Does sound say “danger”?
Does sensation say “they can hurt me”?
Does movement say “there is an I inside them”?
Or does the backpack-story get added?
So don’t try to fix “others.” Look at the story of others as it appears here-now.
What is it made of? Mental image, thought, sensation, memory, expectation, interpretation (all thought).
Is there an actual other inside that story?
Is there an actual me inside that story?
Or is the whole separation a thought-bundle appearing now?
For next time, use a real present “other” if possible — someone neutral: a stranger, cashier, person walking by, family member, dog. Look directly:
What is actually here?
Can an “I” in them be found?
Can an “I” here be found?
What happens in sensation when thought says “they are unpredictable”?
Stay close to the sensations, not the story.
Love
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali,

Sorry for the late reply.
I do realise, that my previous reply was rather mind focused, rather than what is actually here. I'll try my best to return to this simplicity.

Is “same substance” found in direct experience?

No.

Or is that a thought-label describing the absence of separation?

Yes, it's just a label.

What is actually here?

Just sensation, seeing, hearing, tasting, thoughts appearing.

Is “substance” found apart from these?

No. It's a thought label.

Is “all togetherness” found as a thing?

No. It's another label.

Or is there simply no boundary found?

There is no boundary found.

But is there someone who slows down?

No.

Or does the question appear, attention/description shifts, sensations become clearer, thought quiets, and thought says “I slowed down”?

Yes, that's what's happening.

But in direct experience, can an “I” in them be found?

No, there isn't an I.

Does the sensation appearing itself say “others have an I”?

No.

Can an inner “I” inside Lilla be found?

No.

Can a controller inside Lilla be found?

No.

Can a thinker inside Lilla be found?

No. Only thought claims so.

If no “I” is found here, what exactly is being assumed to be inside others?

The word assumed is key here. Thought says, that there's something inside others that behaves in unpredictable ways and that it might be hurtful. These are just thoughts though. In DE there is no I in others either. 

Does DE bring up strong sensations? Or does sensation appear, and thought labels it “strong”?

Sensation appears and thought labels it.

Does sensation itself say “strong”?

No. It's a thought label.

Does it say “too much”?

No. Another thought label added to the sensation. 

Does it say “fear”?

No.

Does it say “anger”?

No.

Does it say “because of others”?

No.

Does it say “others are unpredictable”?

No.

Does it say “I can be hurt”?

No.

Does it say “I need protection”?

No.

Or are those labels added by thought?

Exactly.

What is actually here?

Sensations, hearing, seing, smelling, and thoughts appearing.

Before the label “strong,” what is it?

Just sensation without qualities.

Before the label “fear,” what is it?

Just sensation without anything known of it.

Before the label “others are unpredictable,” what is here?

Just sensation, seeing, hearing, tasting, thoughts appearing.

Is an “I” in others found?

No.

Is an “I” here found?

No.

Or are there sensations and thoughts claiming both?

Yes.

But in direct experience, is there an actual “I” in them?

No.

And is there an actual “I” here who is threatened?

No.

Where is that story appearing?

It's appearing in no- place. Sensation appear, thought appear and thought says "others are unpredictable".

But in direct experience, what is actually found?

sensation, seeing, hearing, tasting, thoughts appearing.

Does colour say “other”?

No.

Does sound say “danger”?

No.

Does sensation say “they can hurt me”?

No.

Does movement say “there is an I inside them”?

No.

Or does the backpack-story get added?

Yes.

Is there an actual other inside that story?

No.

Is there an actual me inside that story?

No.

Or is the whole separation a thought-bundle appearing now?

Yes, exactly.
I chose a cat for the observation practice

Can an “I” in them be found?

No. The question appeared, what is moving that other, then?

Can an “I” here be found?

No.

What happens in sensation when thought says “they are unpredictable”?

A body-map sensation of tightening appears.

Thank you.
Love,
Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla,
Beautiful. This is very clear.

There is no actual I in them, and no actual I here.

Yes. Colour appears. Sound appears. Sensation appears. Thought says “cat,” “other,” “unpredictable,” “something inside them.” But none of those labels are found in the colour, sound, or sensation itself.
Now this question appeared:

What is moving that other, then?

Good. Look carefully.
Is that question asking from direct experience, or is it thought trying to fill the gap?
When the cat moves, what is actually found?
Colour changing? Movement? Sound maybe? Sensation maybe? Thought saying “cat is moving”?
Can a mover inside the cat be found? Can a controller be found?
Can an intention inside the cat be found?
Can a separate entity making the movement happen be found?
Or is there simply movement (dynamic colour), and thought says “something must be moving it”?
This is exactly the same as with “Lilla.”
Movement appears — thought says “I moved.”
Thought appears — thought says “I thought.”
Action appears — thought says “I did it.”
The cat moves — thought says “something inside the cat moved it.”
But is the mover found in either case?

Now stay close to the cat example. Look at the cat moving.
Before thought says “cat,” what is here? Colour.
Does the change in colour itself say “there is an I inside this”?
Does movement itself say “someone is controlling this”?
Does movement itself say “this is unpredictable”?
Or are those thought-additions?
And when the thought “they are unpredictable” appears, you saw:

A body-map sensation of tightening appears.

Good. Stay with that.
What is tightening before the label “tightening”?
Does it say “danger”?
Does it say “cat”?
Does it say “other”?
Does it say “I need protection”?
Or is there sensation, and thought adds the threat-story?
Movement appears. The mover is not found.
Look there with the cat, with strangers, and with Lilla.
Is there a mover anywhere?
Love
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali,

Is that question asking from direct experience, or is it thought trying to fill the gap?

Thought is trying to fill the gap.

When the cat moves, what is actually found?

Colours changing, movement, sensation and thought saying "cat is moving".

Can a mover inside the cat be found?

No.

Can a controller be found?

No.

Can an intention inside the cat be found?

Not at all.

Can a separate entity making the movement happen be found?

No.

Or is there simply movement (dynamic colour), and thought says “something must be moving it”?

Yes, indeed.

But is the mover found in either case?

No. Nothing is found, except for DE.

Before thought says “cat,” what is here? 

Dynamic changing colour and shapes, sensations, sound.

Does the change in colour itself say “there is an I inside this”?

No.

Does movement itself say “someone is controlling this”?

No, yet, thought claims so.

Does movement itself say “this is unpredictable”?

No.

Or are those thought-additions?

They are.

What is tightening before the label “tightening”?

Just sensation, and the sensation changes radically when I remove the label from it.

Or is there sensation, and thought adds the threat-story?

Yes. That is what's happening.

Thank you for the pointers. They were really helpful.
I must admit, I've had a few ups and downs emotionally this summer, and I found it difficult to be in DE, to engage with the inquiries deeply. I'm a lot more at peace now, and I find myself getting into the habit of self inquiry when I have some time for myself.

Thinker still seems sticky to me. When we did the inquiry exercises around stopping thought, noticing whether the next thought can ever be known, etc. they were very useful and I'd like to revisit these inquiries, if you don't mind.

With gratitude,
Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla,
Beautiful looking.

There is simply movement, and thought says ‘something must be moving it’.

Yes. Movement appears. Thought describes a mover. But no mover is found. Same with Lilla. Same with the cat. Same with thoughts.

No, yet, thought claims so.

Does thought actually claim anything?
Does thought have an agenda? Does thought want to deceive?
Does thought know what it is doing?
Or is “claiming” just another description appearing after the fact?
A sentence appears: “I am thinking.” / “The cat is moving.” / “I stopped the thought.” / “They hurt me.”
Language is structured with a subject doing something to an object - “I” think “thought.” / “Cat” moves “body.”
But in direct experience, is that structure found - a subject, an object?
Is there an action owned by the subject? Or is there simply seeing, sound, sensation, thought — and then language describes it as if someone is doing something?
Like icons on a desktop: the icon is useful, but it is not the actual process. The sentence is useful for communication, but it does not prove a doer. The illusion begins where the description is taken as a reality (not by a thinker or an observer - just thought self-organisation). The illusion is not that thought has an agenda. The illusion is the second-level and third level thought takes the sentence-structure as reality.

First layer: Raw happening (DE labels) - Colour changes. Sound appears. Sensation appears. Thought appears.
Second layer: Description / grammar layer / icons (functionality) - “The cat moved.” / “I heard a sound.” / “I had a thought.” / “They said something.” That description is already shaped by language: subject, action, object. Useful for communication, but it implies subject-action-object. However, it does not prove a subject or doer.
Third layer (stories about stories/commentary on the description): Judgement / selfing layer -“The cat should have stayed still.” / “They shouldn’t speak to me like that.” / “They are bad.” / “I am hurt.” / “I need protection.” / “I should be clearer by now.”

That last third layer is where suffering intensifies, because now the sentence is not only describing — it is evaluating, blaming, defending, comparing, and protecting an imagined self. This is where the illusion gets deeper.
So check in real time:
What is the raw happening?
What is the description?
What is the judgement? Is the subject of the judgement found?
For example: Raw: sound. Description: “They said words.” Judgement: “They shouldn’t have said that to me.”
Now look:
Is “they” found in direct experience?
Is “me” found?
Is “shouldn’t” found?
Or are there sound, sensation, thought, image, and judgement appearing?
This is not about stopping judgement. Judgement may appear. The question is:
Does judgement point to an actual judge, victim, offender, or controller?

I’ve had a few ups and downs emotionally this summer, and I found it difficult to be in DE.

Good. Nothing wrong with that. Ups appear. Downs appear. Difficulty appears. Peace appears. Inquiry appears. Avoidance appears. None of this belongs to anyone. Clarity does not need to be continuous. A “me” does not come back when emotions are strong. Strong emotion just means sensations, thoughts, images, and labels are appearing intensely.

Now let’s revisit thinker – but not to stop thought or to become better at inquiry, or to get rid of identification. Just to check again:
Is there a thinker, or only thought appearing?
1. Next thought exercise
Sit quietly for one minute. Wait for the next thought. Before it appears:
Can you know what the next thought will be?
Can you choose it?
Can you prevent it?
Can you decide its exact words, image, tone, or meaning?
When it appears, check:
Did Lilla make it appear? Or did it simply appear?
Then ask:
Where did it come from? Where did it go? Can a source be found?
Can a thinker be found?
2. Thought ownership exercise
Let any thought appear. Then ask:
Is this thought “mine”?
What makes it mine?
Does the thought itself say “I belong to Lilla”?
Is there an owner attached to it?
Or does another thought claim “my thought”?
Look at these: “I am thinking.” / “I don’t understand.” / “I am doing inquiry.” /“I want to see clearly.” / “Thinker feels sticky.”
What are they in direct experience?
Is the “I” found outside the sentence?
3. Thought stopping exercise
Let a thought run. Then “stop it.”
What actually happens?
A thought appears: “stop.” Maybe a gap appears. Maybe tension appears. Maybe another thought appears. Thought says “I stopped it.”
But is a stopper found?
Can thought stop thought?
Can thought control thought?
Can thought think another thought?
Or is there just thought, gap, sensation, more thought?
4. Five-thought sequence
Write down five thoughts as they appear. Then look:
Did you choose thought 1?
Did you know thought 2 before it appeared?
Could thought 3 have been different by command?
Did you decide thought 4?
Who produced thought 5?
Can the thinker be found anywhere in the sequence?
Or are there only thoughts appearing, then thought claiming sequence, ownership, and control?
5. Sticky thinker exercise
Bring up the sense: “Thinker still seems sticky.” Now don’t analyse it.
What is “sticky” in direct experience? Sensation? Thought saying “there is still a thinker”?
Thought saying “this isn’t fully seen”?
Does the sensation itself say “thinker”? Does it say “sticky”? Does it say “me”?
Or are those labels added by thought?
Is thinker anything more than thought plus sensation plus familiarity?

Stay with this one especially. The investigation is not whether thoughts continue. Thoughts will continue. The question is simpler:
Is there anything thinking them?
Can thought do anything - have an agenda, think, force, create entities?

Report from the exercises, especially where “thinker” still feels believable.
Love
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali,
your explanation of the different thought layers was really helpful and clarified things for me.  Thank you.

Does thought actually claim anything?

No.

Does thought have an agenda?

No.

Does thought want to deceive?

No.

Does thought know what it is doing?

No. :)

Or is “claiming” just another description appearing after the fact?

Yes. Another thought.

But in direct experience, is that structure found - a subject, an object?

In DE, there is no subject and object.
Things just are.

Is there an action owned by the subject?

No. It's not owned by anybody.

Or is there simply seeing, sound, sensation, thought — and then language describes it as if someone is doing something?

Yes.

Is “they” found in direct experience?

No.

Is “me” found?

No.

Is “shouldn’t” found?

No.

Or are there sound, sensation, thought, image, and judgement appearing?

Yes.

Does judgement point to an actual judge, victim, offender, or controller

No. It points to nothing and nobody.

Is there a thinker, or only thought appearing?

There are just thoughts appearing.

1.
Can you know what the next thought will be?

No.
It's quite quite amusing. I never investigated it, and now it seems to obvious. 

Can you choose it?

No.

Can you prevent it?

No.

Can you decide its exact words, image, tone, or meaning?

No.
It seems that thoughts quiet down when I pay attention to them, and try to observe them. They still appear, but they are much more subtle, and hard to catch.

Did Lilla make it appear? Or did it simply appear?

Thoughts simply appeared.

Where did it come from?

From nowhere.

Where did it go?

To nowhere.

Can a source be found?

No.
2. Thought ownership exercise

Is this thought “mine”?

Thought says yes, as there is a story connected to the thought. This part is still sticky.

What makes it mine?

Thoughts explaining thoughts.

Does the thought itself say “I belong to Lilla”?

No.

Is there an owner attached to it?

No.

Or does another thought claim “my thought”?

Yes.

Look at these: “I am thinking.” / “I don’t understand.” / “I am doing inquiry.” /“I want to see clearly.” / “Thinker feels sticky.”
What are they in direct experience?

In DE they are body-map sensations. Some thoughts, like "I don't understand" bring about a stronger body-map sensation and mental images as well.

Is the “I” found outside the sentence?

no.

Can a thinker be found?

No.

3. Thought stopping exercise
What actually happens?

A thought says: stop. Body-mind tension appears. Then another thought comes immediately.

But is a stopper found?

No.

Can thought stop thought?

No.

Can thought control thought?

No.

Can thought think another thought?

This one is sticky. Thought claims so

Or is there just thought, gap, sensation, more thought?

yes

4. Five-thought sequence

Did you choose thought 1?

No.

Did you know thought 2 before it appeared?

No.

Could thought 3 have been different by command?

No.

Did you decide thought 4?

No. Thought no. 4 was a thought about this observation. With thoughts reflecting on other thoughts, the illusion of control still seems to be real.

Who produced thought 5?

Nobody and nothing. It just appeared.

Can the thinker be found anywhere in the sequence?

No.

Or are there only thoughts appearing, then thought claiming sequence, ownership, and control?

Yes, that's it.

5. Sticky thinker exerciseBring up the sense: “Thinker still seems sticky.” Now don’t analyse it.What is “sticky” in direct experience?

It's a sensation.

Does the sensation itself say “thinker”?

No, it doesn't say anything.

Does it say “sticky”?

No.

Does it say “me”?

No.

Or are those labels added by thought?

They are.

Is thinker anything more than thought plus sensation plus familiarity?

No.
The takeaway from this exercise was the discovery that the next thought cannot be known. This discovery went deep, and it inspired me to observe thoughts and the revelation is going deeper and deeper. As a consequence, it's becoming clearer that thought don't belong to anyone. I never liked the thought observation meditation practice, and now it comes naturally. There is less and less identification with thought. 
Thank you

Love,
Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla,
Beautiful.

The next thought cannot be known.

Yes. If the next thought cannot be known, chosen, prevented, shaped, or produced, where could a thinker be hiding?
Thought appears. Meaning appears. Sensation appears. Another thought appears. Then language says “I thought,” “my thought,” “I’m observing thought,” “thoughts are mine.” But when checked, no thinker is found.

Can thought think another thought?

This one is sticky. Thought claims so.

Good. Stay right there.
Thoughts say a lot of BS, but can this really be observed in DE do you SEE a thought thinking another thought?
Does thought actually claim anything?
Or does another thought appear saying, “this thought caused that thought,” or “I am thinking this”?
Can the first thought think the second thought?
Can the first thought know the second thought is coming?
Can the first thought produce the second thought?
Can any link between them be found?
Or is there simply: thought, thought, thought, then another thought saying “these are connected”?
Meaning exists only in thoughts, without labels there is just THIS → …
The stickiness is not a problem. What is “sticky” in direct experience?
Sensation. Maybe mental pressure. Maybe a thought saying “this still feels real.”
Does the sensation itself say “thinker”? Does it prove a thinker?
Does the thought “this is sticky” point to an actual thinker?

With thoughts reflecting on other thoughts, the illusion of control still seems to be real.

Good. But look closely.
What is “thought reflecting on thought” in direct experience?
A thought appears. Another thought appears about it. Maybe meaning appears. Maybe body-map sensation appears.
Is there an actual reflector?
Is there control?
Or is there only thought appearing about thought appearing?
The second layer can sound very convincing: “I am observing thoughts.” / “I understand this.” / “I’m getting clearer.” / “I’m less identified.” / “I’m going deeper.”
But is the “I” in any of those found?
Remember the analogy with Chat GPT algorithms. Can an algorithm think or just spits the next conditioned token.

Also there is a difference between an illusion and a delusion. Illusion is when something can be seen as something else, but the truth of what is real is known. Delusion is when the illusion is believed to be true. :)

the revelation is going deeper and deeper.

Beautiful as ordinary language. But in direct experience, is there someone going deeper?
Or is there thought appearing, recognition appearing, ease appearing, inquiry appearing, and thought says “this is deepening”?
And:

There is less and less identification with thought.

Good. But check this too.
Is “identification” found?
When thought is believed, is there a believer?
When thought is not believed, is there someone free from thought?
So where does identification happen?
Not in a believer. It happens when one thought refers to another thought as "me" without being seen through. For example: a thought "I'm not doing enough”, then another thought "Yes, that's true." / "I need to improve", or even "I shouldn't identify with that thought."
Notice that the second thought is not checking DE. It is taking the first thought as reality. It is a thought about a thought.

I never liked the thought observation meditation practice, and now it comes naturally.

No need to make thought observation into a new practice or achievement. Thought may be loud or quiet. Inquiry may happen or not. Clarity may appear or not.
The question stays simple:
Is there anything thinking thought?
And when thought says: “I am observing thought,” “I am less identified,” “I am going deeper,” “I finally see this,” look immediately:
Is that “I” anything more than a word, a sensation, familiarity, and another thought?

It seems that thoughts quiet down when I pay attention to them, and try to observe them.

Look closely.
Is there an observer of thoughts who makes them quiet down?
Or is there simply: a question appearing, quieter thoughts appearing (reflecting DE, aka “looking”), subtler thoughts appearing, sensations appearing, gaps appearing, then thought saying “I observed them” and “they quieted down because I paid attention”?
Can the cause be found in direct experience? Is there a time line where this unrolls?
Does anything actually control thought?
Can an observer be found watching thoughts?
Can a manager be found making thoughts quieter?
Or does the thought-description shift?
First thought-description: “I am thinking.” / “I am caught in thought.” / “Thoughts are busy.”
Then another thought-description: "thoughts are wrong" / “I am observing thought.” / “Thoughts are quieter.” / “This is subtle.” / “I’m catching them.”
But is there an actual observer in either case?
When thoughts are loud, is there a thinker?
When thoughts are quiet, is there an observer?
When thoughts are subtle, is there someone catching them?
Or is there only thought appearing, gap appearing, sensation appearing, and thought describing what is happening?
No need to make thoughts quiet. No need to catch every thought. No need to become good at observation.
Just thought appearing, or not appearing — and thought-description shifting.

Love
Rali

[LillaLilla]

Hi Rali:)

but can this really be observed in DE do you SEE a thought thinking another thought?

No.

Does thought actually claim anything?

No.

Or does another thought appear saying, “this thought caused that thought,” or “I am thinking this”?

Yes. That's it.

Can the first thought think the second thought?

No. Thought appears, sensation, then another thought appears.

Can the first thought know the second thought is coming?

No.

Can the first thought produce the second thought?

No.

Can any link between them be found?

No.

Or is there simply: thought, thought, thought, then another thought saying “these are connected”?

Exactly.

Does the sensation itself say “thinker”?

No.

Does it prove a thinker?

No.

Does the thought “this is sticky” point to an actual thinker?

No.

What is “thought reflecting on thought” in direct experience?

Thought, then another thought.

Is there an actual reflector?

No.

Is there control?

No.

Or is there only thought appearing about thought appearing?

Yes.

But is the “I” in any of those found?

No.

But in direct experience, is there someone going deeper?

No. It's a thought and a body-map sensation.

Or is there thought appearing, recognition appearing, ease appearing, inquiry appearing, and thought says “this is deepening”?

Yes, indeed.

Is “identification” found?

No. Thought and sensation are taken as reality.

When thought is believed, is there a believer?

No.

When thought is not believed, is there someone free from thought?

No.

It happens when one thought refers to another thought as "me" without being seen through

A good reminder. What makes thought less believable now is the wonder, that I hadn't known what the next thought will be. It just appeared.

Is that “I” anything more than a word, a sensation, familiarity, and another thought?

No.

Is there an observer of thoughts who makes them quiet down?

No.

Or is there simply: a question appearing, quieter thoughts appearing (reflecting DE, aka “looking”), subtler thoughts appearing, sensations appearing, gaps appearing, then thought saying “I observed them” and “they quieted down because I paid attention”?

Exactly.

Can the cause be found in direct experience?

No.

Is there a time line where this unrolls?

Thought appears, body-mind sensation appears, and thought appears.

Does anything actually control thought?

No.

Can an observer be found watching thoughts?

In DE, no

Can a manager be found making thoughts quieter?

No. this one is pretty clear.

Or does the thought-description shift?

yes

But is there an actual observer in either case?

No.

When thoughts are loud, is there a thinker?

No.

When thoughts are quiet, is there an observer?

No.

When thoughts are subtle, is there someone catching them?

No.

Or is there only thought appearing, gap appearing, sensation appearing, and thought describing what is happening?

yes
Thank you.
Love:
Lilla

[poppyseed]

Hi Lilla,
Beautiful.

There is only thought appearing about thought appearing.

Yes! Thought does not think, claim, know, control, observe, or make other thoughts appear. Thought appears.
Gap appears. Meaning appears. Another thought appears. Then description shifts (secondary thoughts - thoughts about thoughts): “I am thinking.” / “I am observing thought.” / “This is deepening.” / “I am less identified.” / “This thought caused that thought.”

Thought and sensation are taken as reality.

Good. But look even deeper.
What is “taken as reality” in direct experience?
Is there someone taking thought as reality? Is there an act of taking? A taker?
When a thought feels real, is a real-maker found? Feels? Real?
When sensation feels personal, is an owner found?
Or is “believed,” “real,” and “personal” another layer of thought-description?
Now take one sticky thought, something simple: “I need to understand” or “I am not clear enough.” Let it appear.
What makes it feel real? Sensation? Familiarity? Certainty? Repetition? Emotional charge? A mental image?
What are even these in DE? What is “familiarity” in direct experience? Is it anything more than sensation, image, memory-thought, and a thought saying “this is familiar”?
What is “certainty” in direct experience? Is it anything more than sensation, strong thought, emotional charge (stronger sensation), and a thought saying “this is true”?
The key cut is: Does any of that prove an “I”?
Does familiarity prove a self?
Does certainty prove truth?
Just check… When thought feels real, is the one it refers to found?
Love
Rali