Seeing through

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
Storienie
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2026 6:08 am

Re: Seeing through

Postby Storienie » Thu Aug 27, 2026 5:34 pm

Hi Rali,

I will be away this weekend and maybe won’t respond as regularly. I will still try to sit with what we discussed and the koan you gave me. For now, here are my initial reactions:


Is there a difference between looking and not looking in the context of the following quote?
Looking in DE = looking, dont know how else to describe it. Soaking up what is there, paying attention.
Perhaps thoughts labeling “DE” or “THIS” instead of using other labels. We are talking about “looking in DE” so thoughts come up about “DE” (thought breaks things up differently depending on what the prompt is).

Not looking = labels and thoughts are different. Thoughts don’t have a content of “reflecting” or “observing”.

I feel struggle here. The logical conclusion seems to be “there is no difference except for the thought content” but it is more like a logical conclusion than actually seeing it with certainty.
Sometimes there is looking happening, sometimes there isn’t. Looking is just different thoughts appearing.



Shall we check in again on monday about the checkpoint questions?

User avatar
poppyseed
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 5:28 pm
Location: South Africa
Contact:

Re: Seeing through

Postby poppyseed » Fri Aug 28, 2026 10:27 am

Hi Irene
You are trying to solve the koan logically (for that you would've gotten the stick :) ).
We are talking about “looking in DE” so thoughts come up about “DE” (thought breaks things up differently depending on what the prompt is).
Not looking = labels and thoughts are different. Thoughts don’t have a content of “reflecting” or “observing”.
Soaking up what is there, paying attention.
Paying attention? Who? To what? Form where? How?
We explored “attention” already and we found it to be just commentary about DE instead of commentary about other thoughts…
I smiled when you replaced it with
perhaps thoughts labelling “DE” or “THIS” instead of using other labels
Yes!! The new description is coming along (thoughts self-organising :) ) even if it is still quite timid.

When you say "there isn't looking," what is actually present? Are there no colours? No sounds? No sensations? No thoughts? No THIS?
So… Is that difference (looking vs not looking) found in DE or in thought content? Do you have the two types of thought together – side by side - appearing at the same time so you could see their shapes and qualities? Or is the difference only in another thought talking about a difference?
Also... Is there an observer/Irene/any entity which is seeing the difference? Or is noticing the difference happening in thought - thought about thoughts (secondary thought / not thought about DE)?


Furthermore, when thoughts say "colour", "sound", "DE", "THIS", "looking"... are those thoughts anything other than THIS?
And when thoughts say "shopping", "work", "holiday", "annoying", "I"... are those thoughts anything other than THIS?
So what exactly is the difference? Is there a special kind of thought called "looking" that is closer to reality? Or is the only difference the content of thought?

Earlier we saw that the word waterfall doesn't make anything wet. Likewise, the words DE, THIS, or looking are not any closer to what they point to than the words shopping, work, or holiday.
Nothing thought says is outside THIS. Nothing thought says is DE. They are all approximations of reality/THIS. They are all fingers pointing to the moon not the moon itself :)
So what is left to maintain? What is missing?
Do you need to know anything in order to be? Are you doing anything in order to be? Do you need to hold on to THIS, because it can slip away? Or it can be taken away? Do you need to survive in order to be?
Earlier you saw that THIS is not a special state. It is not something produced by looking. So don't try to maintain "looking" over the weekend. Just live normally.

Love
Rali
Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in. ~Alan Alda
The mind that aims to understand reality can consider itself satisfied only by reducing it to terms of thought. ~ Albert Camus

User avatar
Storienie
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2026 6:08 am

Re: Seeing through

Postby Storienie » Mon Aug 31, 2026 1:04 pm

Hi Rali,

This weekend I took out my phone to read your post a few times. There was some looking but mostly just living normally. It was a nice weekend and I feel peaceful! To answer your questions:
When you say "there isn't looking," what is actually present? Are there no colours? No sounds? No sensations? No thoughts? No THIS?
I can only answer this after it happens, from memory.
There are still colours, sounds, THIS, but just no thoughts about “looking” or labeling “sound” “thoughts” etc.
So… Is that difference (looking vs not looking) found in DE or in thought content?
The difference can only be found in thought content. Comparison is in thought.
Do you have the two types of thought together – side by side - appearing at the same time so you could see their shapes and qualities? Or is the difference only in another thought talking about a difference?
The difference is only in thought.
Also... Is there an observer/Irene/any entity which is seeing the difference?
No, just the thoughts about the difference and thoughts and feelings about “I” when I try to find an observer.

Or is noticing the difference happening in thought - thought about thoughts (secondary thought / not thought about DE)?
Yes
when thoughts say "colour", "sound", "DE", "THIS", "looking"... are those thoughts anything other than THIS?
No, all thoughts appearing just like any other thought or sensation.
And when thoughts say "shopping", "work", "holiday", "annoying", "I"... are those thoughts anything other than THIS?
No
So what exactly is the difference? Is there a special kind of thought called "looking" that is closer to reality? Or is the only difference the content of thought?
Just the content in thought
So what is left to maintain? What is missing?
Decisions happen by themselves, thoughts about looking appear or don’t, the body goes towards food and sleep and nice stuff and away from danger by itself…

Nothing that needs to be maintained by thoughts. Nothing missing.
Do you need to know anything in order to be? Are you doing anything in order to be? Do you need to hold on to THIS, because it can slip away? Or it can be taken away? Do you need to survive in order to be?
No


I feel ok to answer the checkpoint questions if you think that’s suitable. Thanks for your patience!

User avatar
poppyseed
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 5:28 pm
Location: South Africa
Contact:

Re: Seeing through

Postby poppyseed » Tue Sep 01, 2026 9:20 am

Hi Irene
I feel ok to answer the checkpoint questions if you think that’s suitable. Thanks for your patience!
Wonderful! And it really is my pleasure to be your guide!

Here are the questions. Please answer all questions in full, when you are ready. Please answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer. Also please provide examples where asked
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.


Love
Rali
Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in. ~Alan Alda
The mind that aims to understand reality can consider itself satisfied only by reducing it to terms of thought. ~ Albert Camus

User avatar
poppyseed
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 5:28 pm
Location: South Africa
Contact:

Re: Seeing through

Postby poppyseed » Tue Sep 01, 2026 1:16 pm

Hi Irene

I forgot to mention that I'll be on a yoga retreat until Sunday. I'm not sure what the Wi-Fi or reception will be like, but I'll check in whenever I can.

So if my replies are a bit slower than usual, don't wait on me. 😊

Love
Rali
Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in. ~Alan Alda
The mind that aims to understand reality can consider itself satisfied only by reducing it to terms of thought. ~ Albert Camus

User avatar
Storienie
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2026 6:08 am

Re: Seeing through

Postby Storienie » Wed Sep 02, 2026 4:50 pm

Hi Rali,

How nice, enjoy the retreat!
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
No, there isn’t and never was. The only thing that ‘self’ or ‘me’ is, is a thought. That was always the case.
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.
The illusion of separate self is assuming that “I” is a real entity that can be hurt, who things happen to, who can be happy or sad.

Seeing through the illusion of separate self means seeing that there is no entity, but that instead there are thoughts that say “I”, feelings, and other thoughts creating a story about thoughts and feelings. But there is no entity, just thoughts about thoughts, feelings or other things that are there.

The illusion starts when thoughts about thoughts aren’t recognised/ seen as thoughts. This means there is no thought that labels a thought as “thought”. When this happens often (no recognition of thoughts being thoughts), thoughts keep cascading about other thoughts. There are many thoughts then. For example, a thought about the future or the past can come with feelings of worry and thoughts can comment on that, and keep commenting on it for a long time, trying to solve the problem or pacify the feeling. A thought about the self can be “I am doing badly” and thoughts can comment on it by saying “I should do this instead” or “I shouldn’t be hard on myself”, all building on “I” as a real thing. When this happens for a long time, this is a strong habit built by thoughts instead of doing anything else, like for example “looking” or labeling thoughts and feelings, sounds or colours. That’s how the illusion of the self starts.
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.
There is more certainty in what the illusion is. At first, there was frustration because I couldn’t find a self and thoughts kept looking for it and narrating about it. Now, thoughts give a more simple narrative: There are thoughts, feelings, colours, and thoughts can comment on many things, but they are still just thoughts. The self is just another thought.
4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?
Thinking back, the koan about looking vs not looking made me realise that looking/ searching is also a thought narrative. Searching for a state of always looking is also searching, when the question of whether the self was an illusion or not had already been answered. I don’t doubt that the self is an illusion, but I kept doubting that that was it. Doubt is also thought. There was never something controlling thought, so the content of thought doesn’t matter for seeing if the self is an illusion.

As Im writing this doesn’t seem 100% clear, but it feels like it comes from looking instead of logic.
5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.
Decisions are thoughts narrating one choice over another. The actions happen by themselves and thought narrates why an action is being done or will be done. For example, a thought comes up saying “I will write this sentence next”, and the sentence is written. The thought and the writing just happen by themselves.
Another example is deciding to eat chocolate. Thoughts can pop up saying “I want chocolate” “Maybe better to not eat chocolate” and go back and forth between eating and not eating. At some point, the body stands up and gets chocolate. Sometimes the thought narrated a conclusive thought before the body gets up “I will just eat a small piece of chocolate”, but often this thought appears when the body is already on the way to get the chocolate. There is no causal relation between the thought and getting the chocolate.
Describe intention & give examples from experience.
In the chocolate example, intention would be a thought saying “I will get chocolate” before the getting of chocolate happens. The thought is labeled as happening “before” the action took place, so it gets labelled as “intention”.
Describe free will & give examples from experience.
Free will is a thought-concept to describe how thoughts and actions appear. The assumption is that a thinker can control what action comes next. It’s not a correct assumption, because thoughts and actions appear by themselves and are not controlled by anything.
For example, in the thought “I will lift my finger…now”, the “now” part appears in thought simultaneously with lifting the finger. There is no one and nothing that controls when the thought “now” appears and when the finger is lifted.

Another example is deciding to go left or right. The decision-thought appears and the body usually goes to the corresponding direction, but the thought doesn’t necessarily appear before the movement. It can appear afterwards, it can say the wrong direction and it can not appear at all and movement can happen without the thought.
Describe choice & give examples from experience.
Choice is the same as decision but using different words. “I choose to pick A” is the same as “I decide to pick A”. To “make a choice” is to have thoughts about different options, and then “pick one option”. This is again a narration in thought, no one chooses or picks, thoughts just appear saying “this choice was made”.

For example, in choosing to drink water or tea, a thought comparing the two appears and then the body drinks tea. Thought can then say “I decided on drinking tea because I feel cold”.

Describe control & give examples from experience.
I don’t remember the last time I had a thought about control, so it is hard to give examples from experience.
When people talk about control it’s an illusion like free will or the self, that there is an “I” that can control their choices or future. Control is just a way for thought to narrate about cause and effect, in which there is “something” that “controls” something else. In this sense, cause and effect and control exist only in thought.

What makes things happen? How does it work?
Things just happen. Colours, sensations, sounds appear. No one controls when a bird flies by or the rain starts to pour. No one controls when I type a sentence or a thought pops up. I dont know “how it works”, things just happen.
What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.
There is no “I” and no “responsibility”. Things happen by themselves. The body goes to work and cleans the house, thoughts may comment on the importance of doing things, but it’s just thought commenting like commenting about the ice cream flavour.


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 385 guests