Thanks

[poppyseed]

Hi Bill
It’s no bother at all. You write I will respond when I can - very much how life unrolls - completely on its own and without any bother :)

Love
Rali

[daytonabill]

What happens when you don’t reach for certainty? What’s here before an explanation forms?

Nothing. Just quiet.

That immediate, visceral action—without a self narrating or deciding—is exactly what I’m pointing to.

Awesome.

What else is operating this way? Where is choice? Where is a self choosing?

Yes, there's no deciding. Just occurrence.

Everything happens just like this. But do you see it fully, or is there still some shadow of "I" sneaking in, claiming credit after the fact?

Yes, there will be. And I need to look for what the "I" label is pointing to.

Try to catch a thought before it arrives.
Where does it come from?

I see. Ungraspable.

Where does it go?
Can you find an edge, a beginning, an end?

It just dissipates. Like a cloud. No edge, no beginning or end (also like a cloud).

Try to hold a thought in place. Does it stay?

Not without much effort.

This movement—always shifting, never solid—what exactly is there to grasp?

Yes, quite. A cloud.

Why?? Because thought says so??

Well ... as I said ... how could it be otherwise. But yes, it's thought that says so.

Check again—where exactly is this “somewhere”?

I have no clue.

Can you pinpoint a factory, a switch, a thinker generating them? Or does each thought just appear—and then thought itself claims it was “produced”?

It just appears. And doesn't generally claim it was produced.

Look directly: Is there ever an origin you can actually find, or just an assumption that there must be one?

There's an origin for clouds, right?

But where is the meaning before the mind rushes in to label it?
Check now—without going to thought. Is the feeling itself saying, “This means X,” or is it simply a raw sensation?

Feelings evolved for motivating behavior.

I asked you to give me an example of an emotion that comes all the time for you so you can actually work with it, not theorise, but you missed that for some reason

Sorry.

Can you find anyone/anything IN the sensation itself, or BEHIND the sensation that is fearful?

Difficult to answer.

Now look at the thought that comes with it. Can you find anyone/anything in the WORD ‘fear’ that is fearful?

No, of course not.

Is there anything that needs protecting?

Well, that's what fear is for, right? But generally, there's nothing that needs protecting.

[poppyseed]

Hi Bill

Yes, there will be. And I need to look for what the "I" label is pointing to.

Yes—trace the “I” label as it appears. Watch it, in the moment it tries to sneak in.
What exactly is it pointing to?
A sensation? A thought? A feeling?
Something solid?
Follow it all the way—until there’s nothing left for it to point to.
And when the label “I” lands on nothing… what’s left, untouched and never owned?

Try to hold a thought in place. Does it stay?

Not without much effort.

Yes—and even that effort is just more thought, more tension trying to grasp what won’t stay still.
So ask:
Who/what is making the effort?
Can that effortful “I” be found?
If thoughts can’t be held, can’t be controlled… what’s ever been in charge of any of it?
Can you hold a thought forever effort or no effort?
Try it—right now. Hold a thought. Any thought.
Pin it down. Keep it from fading, morphing, dissolving.
Can you?
Even with all the effort in the world—does it stay?
No. It vanishes. It shifts. It slips.
So…If a thought can’t be held—not for a second, let alone forever—
Then what is it that ever had one (thought)?
Where is the one doing or controlling the thinking?

Why?? Because thought says so??

Well ... as I said ... how could it be otherwise. But yes, it's thought that says so.

Look directly: Is there ever an origin you can actually find, or just an assumption that there must be one?

There's an origin for clouds, right?

Exactly. It’s thought claiming there must be a source—because that’s what thought does. It narrates. It explains.
But can you find that source? Not the idea of a source. Not a theory. Actual, direct evidence.
When no location is found, and all that remains is the arising itself—does it even matter “how it could be otherwise”?
If the explanation is just another thought… what is left when there’s no one left to explain anything?
Yes—clouds have causes we can name: evaporation, temperature, pressure...
But notice—those “origins” are conceptual chains. Explanations. Descriptions. All thought-based.
In direct experience:
Does a cloud have an origin, or does it just appear in the sky?
Do you ever see the source, or just the cloud already there?
Same with thought. The story of origins is retrospective, invented after the appearance.
Can you ever find the actual beginning of anything—without thought claiming it must exist?

Feelings evolved for motivating behavior.

Yes—that’s the narrative (the theory): feelings evolved to motivate action. And it’s useful in a scientific, explanatory frame.
But right now—drop the evolutionary story. Strip away the theory.
What is a “feeling” in direct experience?
Can it be found as a tool?
Can it be found as having a purpose?
Or is it just raw sensation, with meaning and function added later by thought?
Do feelings exist for something—or do they just happen, like clouds, like thunder, like thought?

Can you find anyone/anything IN the sensation itself, or BEHIND the sensation that is fearful?

Difficult to answer.

Yes—because it’s not answerable.
You’re trying to find something that isn’t there.
Look directly:
Is there anyone inside the fear?
Any self generating it?
Or is it just a raw, energetic sensation—tense, tight, maybe sharp—but with no one behind the curtain?
The moment it’s seen clearly—just sensation, unclaimed—the whole story of “me who is afraid” begins to fall apart.
So—look again. Is there anyone in the feeling?

Is there anything that needs protecting?

Well, that's what fear is for, right? But generally, there's nothing that needs protecting.

Exactly—fear appears as if there’s something to protect… but when looked at directly, is there?
What’s actually being guarded?
A body (label for sensations)? Sensations are already happening without control.
A self? That can’t even be found.
Fear protects a story. A character. A concept.
But without that story—what is left to defend? What can actually be harmed, right now?

Love
Rali

[daytonabill]

Yes—trace the “I” label as it appears. Watch it, in the moment it tries to sneak in.

In the moment …

What exactly is it pointing to?

To a little fellow seated right behind my eyeballs. But further investigation reveals that the
“I” simply can’t be found. (No point describing the chain of thought, since you’re quite familiar with it.)

A sensation? A thought? A feeling?

Yes, all of those.

Something solid?

Of course not.

Follow it all the way—until there’s nothing left for it to point to.
And when the label “I” lands on nothing… what’s left, untouched and never owned?

Thought. No thinker. Experience. No experiencer.

Who/what is making the effort?

More thought. A decision made to make the effort, but not by any “me”.

Can that effortful “I” be found?

He’s just fiction.

If thoughts can’t be held, can’t be controlled… what’s ever been in charge of any of it?

Nobody in charge. Just happening.

Can you hold a thought forever effort or no effort?
Try it—right now. Hold a thought. Any thought.
Pin it down. Keep it from fading, morphing, dissolving.
Can you?

No. I have to keep returning to it, which isn’t the same thing and which will end soon anyway.

Even with all the effort in the world—does it stay?

Even with maximum effort it’s impossible.

No. It vanishes. It shifts. It slips.

So…If a thought can’t be held—not for a second, let alone forever—
Then what is it that ever had one (thought)?

They appear from nowhere, as far as can be seen.

Where is the one doing or controlling the thinking?

Nowhere that can be seen. There’s stuff going on in the brain, but that’s a question for science, not me.

Exactly. It’s thought claiming there must be a source—because that’s what thought does. It narrates. It explains.
But can you find that source? Not the idea of a source. Not a theory. Actual, direct evidence.

No. None for thought. None for clouds.

When no location is found, and all that remains is the arising itself—does it even matter “how it could be otherwise”?

Matter for what? For the purposes here, no.

If the explanation is just another thought… what is left when there’s no one left to explain anything?

I dunno. Might have been on one of those old Twilight Zone episodes, though.

In direct experience:
Does a cloud have an origin, or does it just appear in the sky?

They just appear. Similar to thought.

Do you ever see the source, or just the cloud already there?

Thought and clouds just appear. Already there. No readily evident source.

Same with thought. The story of origins is retrospective, invented after the appearance.
Yes. So much of that happening. Can you ever find the actual beginning of anything—without thought claiming it must exist?

Thanks for pointing this out, Rali. No. There are no actual beginnings. Only arbitrary points in the processes.

What is a “feeling” in direct experience?

It’s different from thought. Is it ineffable.

Can it be found as a tool? Can it be found as having a purpose?

I want to say yes, in some instances.

Or is it just raw sensation, with meaning and function added later by thought?

Yes, we have to ask about the meaning and function.

Do feelings exist for something—or do they just happen, like clouds, like thunder, like thought?

Not the same. It often isn’t difficult to figure out the reasons for feelings, although, as you pointed out, that’s added later by thought.

Yes—because it’s not answerable.
You’re trying to find something that isn’t there.
Look directly:
Is there anyone inside the fear?

LOL. Yes. My ass. That’s why I’m afraid.

Any self generating it?

No. Not like that.

Or is it just a raw, energetic sensation—tense, tight, maybe sharp—but with no one behind the curtain?

That’s correct. No one who can be seen. Just originating from the brain for whatever reason.

The moment it’s seen clearly—just sensation, unclaimed—the whole story of “me who is afraid” begins to fall apart.

There’s no need for any “me” to feel fear.

So—look again. Is there anyone in the feeling?

No. Anyone you find there is just made up.

Exactly—fear appears as if there’s something to protect… but when looked at directly, is there?

Not usually.

What’s actually being guarded?

One’s butt.

A body (label for sensations)?

The body is real, not just a label.

Fear protects a story. A character. A concept.
But without that story—what is left to defend?

Oh, I see what you mean now. But there’s no fear on this end. Yes, I read that others are often afraid but I’m not.

What can actually be harmed, right now?

Of course there’s nothing real to be harmed.

[poppyseed]

Hi Bill

To a little fellow seated right behind my eyeballs. But further investigation reveals that the “I” simply can’t be found. (No point describing the chain of thought, since you’re quite familiar with it.)

Yes—brilliant. That “little fellow behind the eyeballs” is the perfect image of the phantom.
It feels like someone is there. But when you actually look… Nothing.
Not missing. Not hidden. Just never was.
And now that you’ve seen that—what’s left to defend? Who would gain or lose anything?
What happens when even the search collapses, because it was only ever chasing a shadow?

Nowhere that can be seen. There’s stuff going on in the brain, but that’s a question for science, not me.

Exactly. Let science do its dance with explanations—neurons, modules, mechanisms.
But you? You’re looking for what’s undeniably present—not conceptually, but viscerally.
And when no self, no “me,” no center is found in experience...What remains?
Not an answer. Not knowledge.
Just this?!

If the explanation is just another thought… what is left when there’s no one left to explain anything?

I dunno. Might have been on one of those old Twilight Zone episodes, though.

Perfect. That moment—the “I dunno”—is closer than any explanation could ever be.
No story. No narrator.
Just this strange, silent, inexplicable happening.
Not a mystery to be solved.
A mystery to be.

What is a “feeling” in direct experience?

It’s different from thought. Is it ineffable.

Yes. Not describable, not contained—not “this” or “that.”
It appears. It moves. It fades. It burns or floats or hums. But the moment thought tries to name it, it’s already something else.
So what is it really, when you don’t even call it “feeling”?
Not ineffable because it’s mystical—ineffable because it’s too real to be turned into a word.

Remember …
Emotion = sensation + thought
So yes feelings (emotions) are different from just thoughts because they are a description of sensations. But do emotions exist inherently? Do you know that some languages don’t have a fear as an emotion? Here is a fun video for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XINQvKb ... &index=43

Can it be found as a tool? Can it be found as having a purpose?

I want to say yes, in some instances.

Yes, thought wants to say yes—because that preserves the illusion of order, usefulness, control.
But right now:
Can you find purpose in the feeling itself—before any story explains it?
Can you find a tool, or just this, pulsing, shifting, unknowable?
Purpose is a frame, a label, a post-hoc justification.
Strip it away.
What’s here has no purpose—because it needs none. It just IS.

Is there anyone inside the fear?

LOL. Yes. My ass. That’s why I’m afraid.

Yes—exactly. That’s the reflex: “It’s me in here! Protect me!”
But right now… look into the sensation.
Where is “my ass”?
Is there anything in the raw fear that points to a self, a center, a someone, an ass?
Or is it just tightness, heat, motion…
...and the idea of “me” shows up after, trying to own it?
What if the fear isn’t about you—what if it’s just fear (i.e. a sensation), unclaimed?
Then what’s left to be afraid for?

That’s correct. No one who can be seen. Just originating from the brain for whatever reason.

Yes—and even that last part, “originating from the brain,” is just a story, right? A placeholder.
Can you see the brain doing it?
Can you point to that process in direct experience?
Or is “the brain” just the final ghost—one more label stepping in to explain what is already happening without explanation?
If there’s no one to see, and no origin (as for clouds and thoughts) that can be found…
What’s left but the happening itself—empty, ownerless, unstoppable?

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

No. Only perceptions.

A body (label for sensations)?

The body is real, not just a label.

What changed your mind? I think we saw through “body” already? (Maybe go back and redo the body exercises?!)
Right now, drop the word “body.”
What’s actually here?
Feel directly: Tingling? Pressure? Warmth?
Anything solid, outlined, nameable?
Now try to find “the body” itself—not thoughts about it, not a mental image.
Can you find anything beyond sensations + the label “body”?
What makes it “real”?
If you couldn’t name it, describe it, or think about it—would “body” remain?
Or just raw, unowned experience?
There are colours (shapes), sensations, textures.
But look—are they arranged into “a body”?
Or is that just a thought laid on top of what’s here?
If “body” is removed from language and memory—isn’t it just a shifting collage of colour, vibration and temperature (aka sensations), form?
And look:
Can you find a border, an edge where “this is body” and “this is world”? If you are pointing to skin, look carefully…Is it: A boundary? A container? Or just tingle, pressure, temperature (sensation)? Is there a boundary between the body and the chair (when sitting on a chair)? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Where’s the edge?
Can you find a line between “inside” and “outside”— or is it all just sensation, happening without a center?
If “skin” is only known through sensations + thought…
Can you find anything at all that is inherently skin?
Or is it all one seamless field—cut up after the fact by labels?
So… where’s the body, really?

Love
Rali

[daytonabill]

Not missing. Not hidden. Just never was.

Yes, well said.

And now that you’ve seen that—what’s left to defend?
I don’t think I’ve ever felt the need to defend anything.
Who would gain or lose anything?

Nobody, of course.

What happens when even the search collapses, because it was only ever chasing a shadow?
The search for a self?

Yes, it’s chasing a non-existent shadow, I know that. But I also know that I’ll keep looking for it, just to be devil’s advocate.

But you? You’re looking for what’s undeniably present—not conceptually, but viscerally.
And when no self, no “me,” no center is found in experience...What remains?
Not an answer. Not knowledge.
Just this?!

Yes. Just this.

It appears. It moves. It fades. It burns or floats or hums. But the moment thought tries to name it, it’s already something else.

That’s so true. Constantly shifting. Thanks Rali.

So what is it really, when you don’t even call it “feeling”?

And what if we didn’t label any of them. They’d still exist, and even have bodily effects, but as you noted above, they constantly shift. How can something like that be accurately labelled.

But do emotions exist inherently? Do you know that some languages don’t have a fear as an emotion?

Interesting and informative. Do any feelings need to be labelled?

Here is a fun video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XINQvKb ... &index=43

Makes sense. Language colors our minds, certainly.


<deleting a few lines here because I don't want to argue with you>

Yes—and even that last part, “originating from the brain,” is just a story, right? A placeholder.

Yes.

Can you see the brain doing it?

Not at all.

Can you point to that process in direct experience?

Not at all.

Or is “the brain” just the final ghost—one more label stepping in to explain what is already happening without explanation?

The final ghost. Yes, a place where it can stop. But that’s certainly artificial.

If there’s no one to see, and no origin (as for clouds and thoughts) that can be found…
What’s left but the happening itself—empty, ownerless, unstoppable?

Good point, yes. That’s all that’s left.

What changed your mind? I think we saw through “body” already? (Maybe go back and redo the body exercises?!)

Oh sorry, Rali. I forgot.

Right now, drop the word “body.”

Yes, the body is certainly no more real than anything else. But I don’t want to examine it closely at this point.


Thanks so much, Rali. (And I hope you had an enjoyable and restful vacation.)

[poppyseed]

Hi Bill

And I hope you had an enjoyable and restful vacation

That’s kind of you—thank you. It was :)

Yes, it’s chasing a non-existent shadow, I know that. But I also know that I’ll keep looking for it, just to be devil’s advocate.

Yes—and that’s the last clever twist of it, isn’t it?
The “seeker” keeps looping, not because it believes, but because it enjoys the chase—even after seeing there’s nothing there.
But look again:
Right now, is there truly someone choosing to play devil’s advocate?
Or is even that just another thought—unclaimed, reflexive, echoing?
You don’t need to stop the looking.
You just don’t need to be the one who’s looking.
So… what’s chasing? What needs to find?
Anything left, now that the game is exposed?

And what if we didn’t label any of feelings. They’d still exist, and even have bodily effects, but as you noted above, they constantly shift. How can something like that be accurately labelled.

Exactly. The moment something is labelled, it’s already changed.
Every sensation—already different, already gone.
So the label isn’t capturing anything—it’s just trying to freeze what cannot be frozen.
And yet we build entire stories on these labels. We say “I feel anxious” or “I need control” as if it were a thing.
But what if it’s just movement—ungraspable, unlabelled, alive?
Then what happens to “me and my experience”?
What happens when it’s seen that even the labeler is just another label?
But look now… are there even discrete sensations?
Are you experiencing a series of isolated sensations—little blips with gaps in between?
Or is it more like an unbroken movement, shifting, pulsing, flowing – description as a verb not a noun?
Try to find the edge of one sensation before the next begins.
Can you? Or does each so-called “sensation” just bleed into the next, like ripples in a pond that were never separate to begin with?
“Discrete sensations” is a concept—reality is seamless, borderless, always in flux.
So what exactly are you calling “a sensation”?
And who/what is it that’s measuring the difference?

Do any feelings need to be labelled?

Only if there’s a someone/something that needs to manage them. And if that “someone” is just another label…
Then what’s left to do with a feeling—except “feel” it, “let” it be?
Look: before the label, before the story, before the coping—was there any problem?
Does the burning in the chest or the tightness in the throat ask for a name?
Or does it just come, peak, pass?
So again—what is the label for… if not to claim, to own, to say “this is happening to me”?
Can you drop the label now?
Let the feeling just be?

<deleting a few lines here because I don't want to argue with you>

Notice what snuck in right there:
Not wanting to argue… implies a you and a me, with positions to defend.
But are there two here?
Or just this ongoing movement—thoughts, responses, gestures of mind—playing out, as always, without a knower, without a debater?
No one’s arguing. No one’s agreeing. There’s just this.
If language is seen to colour the mind—what happens when the brush is dropped?
Right now, can you let the page be blank?

Oh sorry, Rali. I forgot.

Look—what is “forgot” made of?
A thought appears: “I forgot.”
Then another: “Oops.”
Then maybe another thought: “I should go back.”
But is there a “you” who forgot?
Or just thought claiming a past, a failure, a controller?
Right now—before memory, before concept—what is “body”?
Strip the label. Drop the word. You don't have to remember, just have a fresh look
What remains?

Just raw, shifting sensation… being labelled after the fact?
Take your time. This is where the illusion hides.

Yes, the body is certainly no more real than anything else. But I don’t want to examine it closely at this point.

Perfect. Then don’t.
That hesitation? That’s the edge. What's been protected here?
The illusion resists being looked at, not because there’s danger, but because it would vanish.
Stay with that resistance! There’s no need to force anything.
But also—notice: the refusal is not yours.
It’s just another movement, claiming protection.
Let it be. Let it play out.
No one here is asking for belief.
Just this: look when it’s raw.
When discomfort stirs again—when the body seems to matter—that’s the invitation. The gate. The access point.
Will you step through?
Only ever now?!

Love
Rali

[daytonabill]

Yes—and that’s the last clever twist of it, isn’t it?
The “seeker” keeps looping, not because it believes, but because it enjoys the chase—even after seeing there’s nothing there.
But look again:
Right now, is there truly someone choosing to play devil’s advocate?
Or is even that just another thought—unclaimed, reflexive, echoing?
You don’t need to stop the looking.
You just don’t need to be the one who’s looking.
So… what’s chasing? What needs to find?
Anything left, now that the game is exposed?

I need to spend more time with this. Awesome questions. Thanks so much, Rali.

[daytonabill]

Yes—and that’s the last clever twist of it, isn’t it?
The “seeker” keeps looping, not because it believes, but because it enjoys the chase—even after seeing there’s nothing there.

Well, the goal is to be certain of whatever is found.

But look again:
Right now, is there truly someone choosing to play devil’s advocate?

No, not at all. Thoughts arise that there’s a “me” who makes a decision and carries it through but that’s pure fiction.

Or is even that just another thought—unclaimed, reflexive, echoing?

That’s all. Just thought.

You don’t need to stop the looking.
You just don’t need to be the one who’s looking.

Of course. Thanks Rali.

So… what’s chasing? What needs to find?

I thought I could answer this now, but I was mistaken. More time needed.

[daytonabill]

So… what’s chasing? What needs to find?

I think it's clear that it comes from the same origin as thoughts. Probably made of the same stuff. And it also carries a high priority. But then so do some thoughts. So what assigns the priority? The only other thing available in direct experience is my body.

Anything left, now that the game is exposed?

What is the game? What’s left appear to be thoughts and/or quasi-thoughts.

Exactly. The moment something is labelled, it’s already changed.
Every sensation—already different, already gone.
So the label isn’t capturing anything—it’s just trying to freeze what cannot be frozen.
And yet we build entire stories on these labels. We say “I feel anxious” or “I need control” as if it were a thing.

So well said. I copied it for review.

But what if it’s just movement—ungraspable, unlabelled, alive?

Yes, of course. That’s apparently what it is. (Although I wouldn’t call it “alive”.)

Then what happens to “me and my experience”?

Thank you, Rali. It’s experience. Not “mine”, of course. And it’s in constant flux.

What happens when it’s seen that even the labeler is just another label?

Of course it is.

But look now… are there even discrete sensations?

Certainly not.

Are you experiencing a series of isolated sensations—little blips with gaps in between?
Or is it more like an unbroken movement, shifting, pulsing, flowing – description as a verb not a noun?

Yes, the latter.

Try to find the edge of one sensation before the next begins.
Can you? Or does each so-called “sensation” just bleed into the next, like ripples in a pond that were never separate to begin with?

Yes, clearly.

“Discrete sensations” is a concept—reality is seamless, borderless, always in flux.
So what exactly are you calling “a sensation”?

Bingo. How beyond arbitrary. You’d need to pin it down and by that time it’s changed. So what are sensations?

And who/what is it that’s measuring the difference?

Thought. An assessor somewhere. Again, I see my body.

Only if there’s a someone/something that needs to manage them. And if that “someone” is just another label…
Then what’s left to do with a feeling—except “feel” it, “let” it be?

Well … we have them as motivators for action.

Look: before the label, before the story, before the coping—was there any problem?

Good point. Not generally, no.

Does the burning in the chest or the tightness in the throat ask for a name?
Or does it just come, peak, pass?
So again—what is the label for… if not to claim, to own, to say “this is happening to me”?

Oh. No, there can be other uses for the labels.

Can you drop the label now?
Let the feeling just be?

Yes, no doubt wise advice.

[daytonabill]

Not wanting to argue… implies a you and a me, with positions to defend.
But are there two here?
Or just this ongoing movement—thoughts, responses, gestures of mind—playing out, as always, without a knower, without a debater?

Deep.

If language is seen to colour the mind—what happens when the brush is dropped?
Right now, can you let the page be blank?

Of course. Hopefully anybody can.

Look—what is “forgot” made of?

It's a form of thought.

But is there a “you” who forgot?
Or just thought claiming a past, a failure, a controller?

There's no "me". This is pure thought.

Perfect. Then don’t.
That hesitation? That’s the edge. What's been protected here?

You don't understand because I didn't explain. It's best just to drop the subjects of body and brain for now. But it has nothing to do with trying to protect anything. Thanks so much, though, for wanting to pursue it if it did! I feel quite lucky to have gotten such a good teacher as you.

[daytonabill]

But are there two here?
Or just this ongoing movement—thoughts, responses, gestures of mind—playing out, as always, without a knower, without a debater?
No one’s arguing. No one’s agreeing. There’s just this.

Yes. Thoughts and responses, which are other thoughts. Thank your, Rali.

[daytonabill]

Have you read "Why Buddhism is True" by Robert Wright, the evolutionary psychologist who'd previously written the bestselling "The Moral Animal".

[poppyseed]

Hi Bill

Well, the goal is to be certain of whatever is found.

And who would that certainty be for?
Look closely.
The goal to be certain is just the seeker in disguise, now dressed as the “final knower,” the one who will finally get it.
But what was ever uncertain, except a thought claiming uncertainty?
There is no "you" being smart about it, there are just thought patterns (conditioning) about "solving a problem"...
This moment—as it is—requires no confirmation. Certainty is another movement of control, of gripping.
So... is anything missing, right now?
Not conceptually. Actually.
Can you find an “uncertain one” who needs to resolve this?
Look where the urge arises… is there someone there?
Thoughts can talk about uncertainty, but how is that your problem??

I think it's clear that it comes from the same origin as thoughts. Probably made of the same stuff. And it also carries a high priority. But then so do some thoughts. So what assigns the priority? The only other thing available in direct experience is my body.

Well … we have them as motivators for action.

You don't understand because I didn't explain. It's best just to drop the subjects of body and brain for now. But it has nothing to do with trying to protect anything.

Thoughts are pretty much self-organised around themselves or around the experience. But even that is a story because self-organisation needs time (past, present, future), which is an illusion, a story. However some stories come handy in pointing…
Leaving one belief unquestioned is like an avalanche – it leads to other beliefs that are based on it. That is how thought and meaning work - a pyramid of knowledge, a house of cards, where concepts are contained within other concepts, forming the world- Bill's world. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with yourself (what is seen). See that!
So to eliminate seeking/doubt you have to question all beliefs no matter how precious and tightly held there are, you can't pick and choose. This is what “protection” is. The self now lingers as a body and brain.
“You” (aka body, brain) choose to hold on to certain beliefs because otherwise the not knowing/not understanding, the lack of meaning to all (scientific, spiritual, or plain everyday stuff) is terrifying, a black hole. That terror is the final veil. You said that you "endeavor to discard all of your beliefs, no matter how seemingly justified", so why stop now? Is this still the case?
Thought reflexively grasps at “meaning,” “understanding,” “control,” because raw unknowing feels like falling forever.
But look again.
Is there anything wrong in the falling—before the mind narrates it?
Is there any problem in not knowing, before the thought “this is a problem” arises?
This “black hole” is only frightening when filtered through imagined ground. But when fully seen, it’s peace itself.
So…Don’t run from it. Don’t explain it. Let it swallow everything.
And what remains?

I will press you here...
Is there a body outside of thoughts and sensations?
You said it: “the only other thing available in direct experience is my body.”
But look again. Right now. Strip away the label.
What is actually here?
Colors. Shapes. Sensations. Warmth. Pressure. Heartbeat.
But is there a “body” as a whole, as an object?
Or is “body” just a story tying these fragments together?
You say “it assigns priority”—but show me where that priority arises outside of thought.
Isn’t it just another thought saying: “This is more important”?
So I ask again:
What’s chasing?
Can you find a chaser—or just the momentum of thought looping?
Not the idea of what’s happening.
What’s here, before the interpretation?
Can you catch the “you” or any other entity in the act?
Drop the body. Drop the brain. Drop the chase.
No defense. No protection. No reference point.
Now — look freshly.
What remains?
Not the story, not the analysis, not even the idea of “direct experience.”
Just this.
Before the next thought arrives…is there anything missing?
And when the thought does arrive—did you call it?
Or does it just appear, uninvited, like a breeze?
In this immediacy, untouched by labels or positions, what exactly are you?
If nothing is being held… can anything be found?

Furthermore, you talk about sensations (emotions) like they can do things – motivate, push – or like a thought can do anything (interpret the sensation and design a plan of action that it carries out). Is it really like this? Can a sensation do anything? Can a thought do anything? Is causation a thing or just a story about THIS?
Look now. Not in thought. Right here.
Pick a sensation. Pressure. Warmth. Tingling. Doesn’t matter.
Let it be exactly as it is, without naming or interpreting.
Now ask...
Can this sensation intend, choose, decide, act?
Can it reach out? Move toward? Push or pull?
Can it form a thought, make a plan, take control?
Or is it utterly motionless in its own arising, doing nothing but being what it is?
If no sensation can do anything, and if everything is sensation and thought…
Then what exactly is doing?
Look. Not think. Not deduce.
See.

Now apply the same to thought
Think of a pink elephant… Did it appear out of nothing?
Can a mirage quench thirst?
Look—strip it down. A thought appears. That’s all.
Can it move a hand? Lift a foot? Choose the next thought?
Or is it always just commentary, after something is already happening?
Test this now!
Wait for a thought to appear—any thought.
Did you bring it up?
Can you stop it from coming?
Can you choose the next one?
If a thought says, “Get up!”—does that do anything by itself?
Or is it just noise floating in space, followed (sometimes) by movement, and then the story that “I decided”?
So look again.
Where is the power in thought?
Where is the doer?
Don’t answer. Don’t think about it.
LOOK.

Have you read "Why Buddhism is True" by Robert Wright, the evolutionary psychologist who'd previously written the bestselling "The Moral Animal".

Thoughts about books—just more thoughts. You wouldn't find awakening in a book, but in plain looking!
Does the thought “Why Buddhism is True” reveal anything that this moment doesn’t?
Can Robert see better than Bill? Look now.
Not what’s written. Not what someone says.
Just this.
Before you label it “true,” “Buddhist,” “me,” or “experience”…What is this?
Forget Robert Wright. Forget Buddhism.
Can you even find a "you" who could read, believe, or understand?
Strip it clean.
What’s left?
Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

P.S. You might find that video helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNwED9J ... 4&index=44