The Gate

Hi Rali,

Here is part 2:

“1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”?
With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Does it have a specific location?”

I did this with something warm instead. A first I was going to pick B as my answer, but then I checked in and I think if I choose B, that is coming from a thought, because I think that is “the right answer” - but then I realised this is not about getting “the right answer” but about seeing what is true for me now. So based on that, I have to say that it seems like my fingers are warm because they are touching a warm cup. The body map image is very sticky for me, and I find it difficult to parse it from the sensation.

The warmth seems to appear in my hands. With eyes closed, it feels like I am looking down from a vantage point located in my head toward the location of the hands. I can see that this is due to an image in my mind of a body map (simply = thought, thinking), but I find it very difficult to unstick the map from the sensation. First the sensation appears, then the body map image appears really quickly, then the labels (hands, cup, hot).

“Can it be known how tall the body is?”

No - the only thing that can make it appear to have a height is an image of the body in the mind. I can play with it to imagine a taller or a shorter body, but in direct experience, it can't be known.

“Does the body have a weight or volume?”

It seems to have weight, but when I really look, I can't find a thing called "weight", but rather different sensations. It seems like there are different qualities of sensation in different locations.

Volume, like height, seems to be malleable by using thought, but in direct experience, it cannot be known.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form? Does it have parts?

No, it doesn’t (but the body-map is still hanging around when I look here!)

To be continued tomorrow! :)

Part 3 - I'm leaving the very last question for later today.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?

I’m finding it difficult to let go of the thought “there is no boundary” and to actually see that in my experience. This kind of exercise has always been difficult for me - I think I need a bit more guidance on how to look here. If I ignore the image showing a body and a chair, there is only sensation, but the image and the labels come so quickly it seems difficult to feel the sensation without them.

Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?

Not sure how to look here. It feels like “my” body, and at the same time, I can see that “body” is just a label. With eyes closed, it is composed of sensation (feeling) plus a mental image of a body (thinking). With eyes open, colour gets added to that (seeing).

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

Again, it seems like there is an inside and an outside, but that is because the mental image of the body is so sticky. Really, it’s just sensation, but that doesn’t seem super clear experientially. How can I unstick the body image?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Answered above!

Hi Kate,
This is beautiful work — you’re doing exactly what’s needed: looking directly and reporting with honesty, not reaching for “right” answers. That’s the key to seeing clearly.
Let’s go through a few of your observations and point in a little deeper.

The body map image is very sticky for me… First the sensation appears, then the body map image appears really quickly, then the labels…

Great noticing. You’re seeing the sequence. That’s crucial. Direct experience comes first — then the body image, then the labels. All of that is added. Let's explore the difference between mental image and DE.
Close your eyes and imagine holding a watermelon in your hands. Imagine it so vividly that you can feel its weight, the shape and texture of the skin. Hold it there, sensing it. Then open your eyes.
What happened to the melon?
How about the sensation that was so believable?
Was there ever a melon in ‘reality’?
Was there an appearing mental image?
Was the content of the mental image (the melon) ‘real’?
The thoughts and mental images are real only as DE of thoughts and mental images, their appearance cannot be denied. However their ‘contents’, what they are about (like the watermelon) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. In a way mental images are also thought content.
Can you see this?

Here’s how to dig further:
When the image of the hand appears, can you pause and just see the image itself?
Try this:
Close your eyes. Let the hand sensation be there. Notice the image of the hand when it appears. Just see it as an image. Don’t push it away. Just clearly recognise: this is thought. Not the sensation itself. Then look again: what is the actual sensation without the image?
What you’ll find is that the sensation is vague, shifting, moving. It doesn’t outline a hand. It doesn’t locate anything. The clarity is actually in the thought — not the body.
So the “stickiness” is just how fast the map loads. That’s all. Nothing wrong. Just look freshly, each time.

You can explore further with eyes open. Now observe the hand by looking only. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations. Repeat this as many times as needed and investigate…
Normally we believe that the sensation is coming from the sight, the ‘object’ seen (hand).
But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the sight? In other words, is the sensation ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?
Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?
So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?
You can repeat the exercise with all of body parts.

You also said:

With eyes closed, it feels like I am looking down from a vantage point in my head…

Yes. Again — a thought. An image of “a me behind the eyes” that is doing the looking. But what’s actually happening? We can look a bit deeper at this next time

At the point where the body contacts the chair, are there two things — or one, sensation?

Here’s a way in: forget “chair” and “body” for a moment.
Just close your eyes and rest with the raw tactile experience at the contact point.
Don’t name it. Don’t describe it. Just let it be. Now have a fresh look:
Are there two sensations there – one of a chair and one of a butt – or one labelled “butt on chair?
Can you find an actual line, an edge, a division? Not in the mental image but in the sensation.
Or is that sense of “this is body / this is chair” only coming from a mental image?

How can I unstick the body image?

Don’t try to unstick it — that’s just more seeking.
Instead, become intimate with it. Watch it like you’d watch a daydream. See the image for what it is: a projection, a habit, an echo — not a reality.
Then gently ask:
Apart from the mental images and labels — what is a “body”?
Where is it, exactly?
Stay with the directness of just sensation. Let it reveal itself without needing to fit into a map.
You’re right in the fire now, Kate. Keep looking without effort. Let the need to “get it” fall away and just keep noticing what’s here.
No fixer. No observer. Just this/whatever is happening.
Love
Rali

“Close your eyes and imagine holding a watermelon in your hands. Imagine it so vividly that you can feel its weight, the shape and texture of the skin. Hold it there, sensing it. Then open your eyes”

I have a bit of a hard time imagining holding the watermelon - I can do it somewhat, but I don’t feel thoroughly convinced. I think partly it’s because I am on the aphantasia end of the spectrum - mental images are very vague - so while the body map is there and persistent, it’s not like I’m seeing a photograph, as some people do. It’s more like a vague sense of where things are and what shape they have. I’ll do this exercise to the best of my ability…

“What happened to the melon?”

It disappeared

“How about the sensation that was so believable?”

It also seemed to dissipate

Was there ever a melon in ‘reality’?

No

Was there an appearing mental image?

Kind of (see explanation above)

Was the content of the mental image (the melon) ‘real’?

No

“The thoughts and mental images are real only as DE of thoughts and mental images, their appearance cannot be denied. However their ‘contents’, what they are about (like the watermelon) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. In a way mental images are also thought content.

Can you see this?”

Yes

“Close your eyes. Let the hand sensation be there. Notice the image of the hand when it appears. Just see it as an image. Don’t push it away. Just clearly recognise: this is thought. Not the sensation itself. Then look again: what is the actual sensation without the image?”

Practicing this, I can see the mental image is just a thought, but I still feel like I’m searching for the sensation in a particular location in space. Almost like I don’t know how to feel sensation without “looking”. When I then try to forgo looking in a location and just feel, I notice I am holding my breath, almost as if I need to hold my breath to make the mind slow down or something.

“What you’ll find is that the sensation is vague, shifting, moving. It doesn’t outline a hand. It doesn’t locate anything. The clarity is actually in the thought — not the body.”

I am still practicing this… interesting that you say the clarity is in the thought, not the sensation, because somehow I’ve always looked for clarity in the sensation in this kind of practice! Nice to know that isn’t necessary.

“Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?”

Hmmmm… sort of, but it still feels like they are linked, regardless of not having hierarchy. I’ll have to keep practicing this one as well.

“Here’s a way in: forget “chair” and “body” for a moment.
Just close your eyes and rest with the raw tactile experience at the contact point.
Don’t name it. Don’t describe it. Just let it be. Now have a fresh look:
Are there two sensations there – one of a chair and one of a butt – or one labelled “butt on chair?
Can you find an actual line, an edge, a division? Not in the mental image but in the sensation.
Or is that sense of “this is body / this is chair” only coming from a mental image?”

Very helpful! Much clearer now. It is one sensation. I can’t find a line, edge or division. When I come back to it now, it almost feels as if the cushion my back is leaning on is in my back, like back and cushion are overlapping somehow. It’s not at all clear what is back and what is cushion - just a sensation.

“You’re right in the fire now, Kate. Keep looking without effort. Let the need to “get it” fall away and just keep noticing what’s here.
No fixer. No observer. Just this/whatever is happening.”

Thank you for this reminder. <3

Hi Kate
This is an excellent post — not just because of what you’re seeing, but because you’re staying right at the edge where conditioned perception meets actual experience. That’s the fire. That’s where this work does its thing.
Let’s unpack a few key points:

I have a bit of a hard time imagining holding the watermelon - I can do it somewhat, but I don’t feel thoroughly convinced. I think partly it’s because I am on the aphantasia end of the spectrum - mental images are very vague - so while the body map is there and persistent, it’s not like I’m seeing a photograph, as some people do. It’s more like a vague sense of where things are and what shape they have.

It doesn’t really matter, as no person really sees a photograph. The image might be more detailed or not, but it’s still not the real thing, and it disappears the minute you stop thinking about it. It is an image in the mind not something perceived via senses. And that is what the purpose of that exercise was – to see that these are mental creations / thoughts and not reality. Real “things” do not disappear when you stop thinking about them.

I can see the mental image is just a thought, but I still feel like I’m searching for the sensation in a particular location in space.

Remember!
“Feels like”, “seems like”, “sense of” = thought content
Nothing in DE is seems/feels like – it’s either here, clear as a day, or not. “Feels like” is a remnant of a conditioned way of describing what is happening. See that. It’s been accepted as real for a long time, but now we want to challenge that and check what is really happening. That is why we are trying to temporarily separate the thoughts/labels/descriptions from the DE of the senses, so new, truer perceptions can be formed. We are not interested in these old descriptions, but in reports of the DE – disregard what thought helpfully pushes and have a fresh look at what is here, now – seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or felt.
This is the habit to watch now. Furthermore, the sense of "looking for a sensation" implies that there's someone in a position somewhere, scanning for something. But sensation doesn't need to be found/located — it's already arising. The only question is: can it be here without the idea of “where” or “what”?
Keep noticing…The search is thought. The sense of location is a mental overlay. The sensation doesn’t announce a location — that gets added.

Similarly to the apple, the actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it a ‘body’(part), but can a body be found as actual/direct experience or only thoughts about a body (parts)?
Let’s take a closer look at the idea of the head, where it is believed seeing from occurs, but can a head be found as actual experience?
Please IGNORE all thoughts and mental images of ‘head’ and ‘fingers’ and just answer from actual experience. Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed...Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’. Notice what is actually present.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?

Do the same with a finger on each side of the head.
Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them

Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
Is there one sensation or three (two fingers and a head)?
Without thought, does it have a location?

If the head is a “transparent”/energetic/vague sensation, from where exactly are you looking for a sensation? Where exactly is the refence point for up or down, left or right?
Yes, the sensation “right hand” is differently experienced from the sensation “left hand”, but can you see that “left” and “right” are just labels and not locations/directions?

I notice I am holding my breath, almost as if I need to hold my breath to make the mind slow down or something.

Beautifully noticed. Holding the breath is often the body's way of trying to control or stabilize attention. There’s nothing wrong here — just a deep impulse to manage or “do it right.” Let it soften. No control is needed. If you feel tension when trying to look at what is, you are trying too hard. Stop trying. Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here, not inventing or imagining something that needs a huge amount of energy to sustain.
If holding the breath becomes tight or forced, try this...Let the breath move freely while sensation remains in the foreground. Let sensation and breath co-arise — without trying to pin either down.

Nice to know that [clarity] isn’t necessary in the sensation.

Exactly. The clarity isn’t in the sensation — it’s in seeing the overlays as overlays. Not trying to peel them off, just seeing that they aren’t the thing they describe. This insight flips the whole framework. Sensation is vague, fluid, alive. Thought tries to fix it into shape mapped into a location. Seeing this is the clarity.

It still feels like [visual and tactile] are linked, regardless of not having hierarchy.

Feels like?
Do you see and actual ties, glue, chains, or Velcro? How exactly are they linked? Don’t settle for old descriptions. LOOK!

You don’t need to force separation. Just keep noticing how they arise simultaneously. Over time, the sense of them being fused starts to loosen as you see they aren’t contained within each other. This happens naturally through repetition, not effort. Just continue to notice the structure of experience rather than trying to change it.

It is one sensation. I can’t find a line, edge or division… it’s not at all clear what is back and what is cushion.

Perfect. That’s the shift. Not a conceptual shift — a perceptual one.
You didn’t have to change anything. You just stopped assuming what was there.
No “body.”No “chair.”
Just sensation — and then the thought about it.
Keep returning to this simple seeing. Let it deepen. The more clearly you see that there’s no line, no division, no separate “thing” — the less grip the illusion of a separate self will have.

Thank you for this reminder. <3

You're welcome — but truly, the reminder is coming from your own looking.
Keep going. Let this unfold without force. Drop the expectation of arrival. There’s only this.
And it’s already exactly as it is.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Here is part 1. Part 2 will come tomorrow :)

“And that is what the purpose of that exercise was – to see that these are mental creations / thoughts and not reality. Real “things” do not disappear when you stop thinking about them.”

This is great - thank you. I have been trying too hard for so long to get it perfect! Hahahah.

““Feels like”, “seems like”, “sense of” = thought content”

ok!!! Super helpful! I wasn’t seeing that, funnily enough. Strong habit!

“ But sensation doesn't need to be found/located — it's already arising. The only question is: can it be here without the idea of “where” or “what”?”

Yes, it can.

“The search is thought.”

Oh my god, it is! Super helpful - so many stories in the mind that are so close I haven’t been recognising them. “I am searching” is a story.

“Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?”

Just a sensation labelled “pressure” and thoughts about a finger and a head. Interestingly, when I remove the finger, the sensation still remains.

Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?

Just sensations, and a thought about a head.

And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them.

Thoughts about something between them.

Without thought, how big is your head?

It can’t have a size without thought. “Size” is meaningless in direct experience.

Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?

Also meaningless without thought. Also, inside or outside of what? The what is also a thought, so in direct experience, this is all meaningless.

Is there one sensation or three (two fingers and a head)?

Are those the only options? I would have said two sensations labelled "pressure".

Without thought, does it have a location?

What is location without thought? It can’t have a location without thought, because that would be referring to a mental image.

Gratefully,

Kate

Hi Rali, Here's part 2:

“If the head is a “transparent”/energetic/vague sensation, from where exactly are you looking for a sensation? Where exactly is the reference point for up or down, left or right?”

Clearly I’m looking from a mental image - the reference point is in the mental image. There is a mental image of a body sitting and eyes looking down from the face. There is sensation in the eyes (feeling). There is a contraction in the core and a thought saying I’m not really getting this (thinking).

“can you see that “left” and “right” are just labels and not locations/directions?”

More contraction and frustration. Contraction in the core and heart (sensation, feeling) plus thoughts saying “I don’t know how to do this without trying”, and “I should be able to see this”. Sensation in the arms and around the eyes (feeling).

“Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here, not inventing or imagining something that needs a huge amount of energy to sustain”

I’m going to write this on my wall.

“Do you see and actual ties, glue, chains, or Velcro? How exactly are they linked?”

Ok, I see that they are not linked, just simultaneously arising. No velcro, staples, chains or glue.

The temptation to say "feels like, seems like, etc" is strong! The old way...

:)

Hi Kate

This is spot on — really excellent looking here. You’re not just reporting well, you’re seeing through some very old assumptions in real-time. Beautiful.
Let’s highlight a few shifts that are now happening:

I have been trying too hard for so long to get it perfect!

Yes — and that effort itself is what keeps the illusion alive. The idea of “doing it right” sneaks in as the seeker, looking for a specific outcome. But as you saw:
“'I am searching' is a story.”
Exactly. Searching is a thought. “Me” searching is a thought. The tension of “I need to get this” is a story about a fictional someone. And now that you're seeing that, it can be let go in the moment it appears.

You also nailed this:

It can’t have a size without thought.

Inside or outside of what? The what is also a thought.

Yes. See how everything — size, inside/outside, location, body, head — all require a reference image in thought? Without that image, without the thought-story: what is left?
Just raw sensation. No position. No shape. No container. No owner.

Are those the only options? I would have said two sensations labelled ‘pressure’.

Yes — great noticing. And let’s take it one step further.
How can there be a number of sensations?
What divides one sensation from another?
Where is the border that shows where one ends and the next begins?
Look closely. Not for labels but for actual borders.
Is there any line, edge, or gap — or is it just one seamless, shifting field?
You might notice that the moment you say “two sensations,” it’s because a thought labelled them as two. But in direct experience, before thought?
There’s just this. A continuous, indefinable happening.
Without the labels there is just THIS. In Buddhism the term “suchness” or “thusness” (whatever is happening) is used, referring to the nature of reality free from conceptual elaborations and the subject–object distinction. I like the word “THIS” as it is more like a pointing word/an arrow – pointing to whatever is directly experienced with no extra meaning – rather than labelling the experience. Experience is inconceivable, ungraspable. And yet, it can be directly seen/experienced.

So the real question is:
Without referring to thought — can any separate sensation be found at all?
Or is separation itself just another idea?

Even the label “pressure” is still just a thought, appearing after the raw sensation. It’s not the sensation itself — it’s a concept about it.
So if we don’t reach for that label... what’s actually there?
Maybe it’s vague. Shifting. Maybe it has no clear beginning or end.
Maybe it doesn’t even feel like “two” things — just one field of sensation.
And maybe... it can’t be described at all.
Let it be completely formless. Don’t name it. Don’t compare it. Just rest in the directness of it. Every time a label appears — “pressure,” “fingers,” “head” — just recognise:
That’s a thought.
That’s the overlay.
What’s here without it?
Stay with it. Let sensation be borderless.

Clearly I’m looking from a mental image... a body sitting and eyes looking down from the face.

Exactly — and now that this is seen, the spell starts to weaken. The “I” that’s looking is also part of the image. The whole sense of “being behind the eyes” is a projection. It’s not found in direct experience — it’s about experience.
Keep going: when that “looking from the head” sensation arises, pause and ask:
Where is this “from”? Can anything be found doing the looking? OR that is only a conditioned mental image/ a thought about?

More contraction and frustration... thoughts saying ‘I don’t know how to do this without trying.’

Yes. This is the conditioned response of the seeker — the one who needs to “get it.” But notice what else you said:
“There is a contraction in the core... there are thoughts... there is sensation...”
Exactly. That’s all that’s happening: sensation, thought — simultaneously arising.
Nothing needs to change. Nothing needs to be figured out.
You’re not trying to feel differently or behave differently.
You’re just noticing that all those labels — “frustration,” “trying,” “left/right,” “behind the eyes” — are just stories appearing about what’s already here.

Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here...

Yes. Let this become the anchor. Put it on the wall, on your mirror, on your phone background.
Looking is not doing.
It’s the soft dropping of all effort, and seeing what’s here before the commentary starts. What’s already being felt, seen, heard — without names, without direction, without control.

Ok, I see that they are not linked, just simultaneously arising.

Exactly. No glue. No cause and effect. No hierarchy.
Just this immediate, label-free arising — and the mind rushing in to tie a bow around it.
Next time that contraction appears, or the image of “looking from the head” shows up, don’t fight it. Just look:
Is this anything more than thought saying what this is?
Let it all be. No fixer needed.
You’re doing beautifully. Stay here.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Here is Part 1. I may not have time to do part 2 tomorrow. I'll be out all day. :)

How can there be a number of sensations?
What divides one sensation from another?
Where is the border that shows where one ends and the next begins?

There are thoughts saying “there are sensations that are different in quality” (simply, thinking), there is a body map image and sensation in the eyes (simply, thinking and feeling), there is a thought questioning how it is known that the sensations are different in quality (simply, thinking), there is some holding of the breath (simply, feeling), there is a thought about an I looking for a border between the “different” sensations (simply, thinking), there is a thought asking how it’s known that tasting is different from feeling (simply, thinking), there is a thought asking what knows feeling, tasting, thinking, seeing, smelling, hearing (simply, thinking).

Look closely. Not for labels but for actual borders.
Is there any line, edge, or gap — or is it just one seamless, shifting field?

I can see that a border can only exist in thought, and there is a thought saying “I’m not getting it perceptually” (simply, thinking). There is a thought predicting what the experience should be once I ‘get it’ (simply, thinking).

You might notice that the moment you say “two sensations,” it’s because a thought labelled them as two. But in direct experience, before thought?

There is a body map image of a person looking internally from one hand to another to find the border between sensations (simply, thinking). There is contraction in the core, and holding of the breath (simply, sensation). There is a thought saying “this is so simple, I am ready to see this” (simply, thinking). There is a thought saying “I am getting close”, a sensation labelled "excitement" (simply, feeling plus a thought of the future outcome, simply thinking), a thought saying “I don’t want to let go of the experience of accomplishing something” (simply, thinking). A sensation of fingers on keyboard (simply, feeling). Colour labelled computer on lap (simply, seeing). A voice asking if I’m done yet (simply, hearing), an image of someone coming into the room (simply, seeing). A feeling labelled “irritation”: Thoughts asking “why can’t she just wait five minutes” (simply, thinking) plus contraction in the core and in the jaw (simply, feeling).

Goodnight!

Hi Rali,

Here is part 2 of 3 -3 will come tomorrow.

So the real question is:
Without referring to thought — can any separate sensation be found at all?
Or is separation itself just another idea?

To look at this, I have one hand on something hot and the other on something cold to see if there is any way to differentiate them without thought. So far, there is sensation, and the labels “hot” and “cold”,”left” and “right”. There is a body map image of one hand on the mug and one on the computer (simply, thinking) but in direct experience, I wouldn’t even know how to find separation without thought. At the same time, there is a thought saying “yeah, but it isn’t yet a fully experiential understanding” (simply, thought). There is another thought saying “there is no way to say I’m not getting it perceptually” without thought, and yet I don’t want to just say I get it without the perceptual shift being true (also thought).

Even the label “pressure” is still just a thought, appearing after the raw sensation. It’s not the sensation itself — it’s a concept about it.
So if we don’t reach for that label... what’s actually there?

Just sensation.

Maybe it’s vague. Shifting. Maybe it has no clear beginning or end.
Maybe it doesn’t even feel like “two” things — just one field of sensation.
And maybe... it can’t be described at all.

It can’t be described without thought (labels, images, concepts)

Hi Rali,

Here is partpart 3! :)

Let it be completely formless. Don’t name it. Don’t compare it. Just rest in the directness of it. Every time a label appears — “pressure,” “fingers,” “head” — just recognise:
That’s a thought.
That’s the overlay.
What’s here without it?

Just sensation, and the more I look, the more I get little moments of seeing that the mental images and labels are not “stuck” to the sensation. It’s hard to describe how that is known, but the sickiness is loosening.

Keep going: when that “looking from the head” sensation arises, pause and ask:
Where is this “from”? Can anything be found doing the looking? OR that is only a conditioned mental image/ a thought about?

When I look for what is looking, the only things I can find are thoughts (mental image of the body and specifically the face looking down at the body or eyes looking into the head, a thought saying I am looking, a thought saying the only place to look is in the senses), sensations (breath holding slightly, eyes straining, pressure on the legs). When I relax all that (straining, labels, mental images, breath), there is also sound, and a thought that says “I am aware”. Even “I relax all that” is a thought. There is a thought projecting what it will feel like when this all becomes clear (simply thinking).

With gratitude,

Kate

Hi Kate,
This is beautiful. Quiet. Honest. Deep.
You’re seeing clearly now how much of experience is just story layered over sensation — and how even the sense of “someone doing inquiry” is also just another thought.
Let’s land a few things clearly now:

There is a body map image of a person looking internally from one hand to another to find the border between sensations…

Yes. And that entire scene — the body, the looking, the searching, even the hands — is thought. Just thought.
There is no boundary being found — only a thought about looking for one.
So now the real question is:
Right now, without going into thought — is there any such thing as “two” sensations?
Or is that just an idea, retroactively applied to what’s actually one seamless field (e.g. labelled "two fingers on a head")

There is a thought saying ‘I am getting close.’

Exactly — and that’s the final veil. “I am close” is still the seeker. Still the idea of someone moving toward something. Watch this one very carefully.

I don’t want to let go of the experience of accomplishing something.

Yes. That’s the ego’s last strategy — spiritual success. It wants even awakening to feel like achievement. Completion. Personal arrival.
But what if there’s nothing to accomplish?
What if this — this raw, unfiltered, ungraspable mess of sensations, thoughts, colours, tension, irritation, sound, breath-holding — is already whole?
No border. No inside. No outside. No self.
Just this. Already.
Don’t try to perceive “oneness.”
Let experience be undivided — not by trying to make it “one,” but by dropping the idea that it was ever “many.” See that the labels that create the separartion are empty of inherent existence. There are no apples and coffee cups, there is just this seemless happening.
That’s it.
I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

Just sensation, and the more I look, the more I get little moments of seeing that the mental images and labels are not ‘stuck’ to the sensation.

Yes. That’s it. This isn’t about one final breakthrough.
It’s this gentle, quiet erosion — the automatic belief in the overlay starting to fall away.
Nothing needs to snap or click. The “stickiness” loosens — and what’s always been here is simply unhidden.

There is a thought saying it isn’t yet a fully experiential understanding…

Good. That’s the last card the mind plays. “You don’t really get it yet.”
But look closely: is that anything more than just another thought?
Does anything in direct experience say “this isn’t clear yet”? A sensation? A colour?
Or is it only the story saying “this needs to become something”?
The seeking mechanism is always future-oriented. But this is already whole — nothing missing, nothing ahead. It has always been like that and it will always be - just the story changes. So how can this probably become experiential?
Thoughts add an overlaying narrative of names, labels, interpretations, explanations over the simplicity of what is. They are always out of step with reality, and they obstruct the clear seeing of how things actually are. Reality is very simple. Just see what is here now silently, without words.

But now look!
What do thoughts happen to?
Is there someone outside of thoughts, being identified with them?
Are you their listener or are you the their creator/narrator?
Can you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear? Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead? Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Where do thoughts appear from? Where are they coming from and going to? Do they appear randomly or in a structured way? Watch like a hawk.

Are thoughts 100% true?
What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

When I look for what is looking… the only things I can find are thoughts… sensations… breath holding…

Yes. So now take a breath and look even softer:
Is there anything behind the looking?
Is there a subject here?
Can “awareness,” “observer,” “I” be found as anything more than thought?
You already saw it: even “I relax all that” is a thought.
So then…
Who/what is left to awaken?

Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Here is Part 1. Part 2 will come tomorrow morning.

“Right now, without going into thought — is there any such thing as “two” sensations?
Or is that just an idea, retroactively applied to what’s actually one seamless field (e.g. labelled "two fingers on a head")”

Today I am going through a heartache. There are thoughts saying “I can’t do this exercise right now because I need to be with this emotion”. But breaking down the emotion to see what it is, I notice only sensation and thoughts saying what it’s about and also thoughts saying I don’t want to feel this, and thoughts saying I’m broken. Sensation in the chest, throat, eyes. Thoughts about how to fix myself. Breath holding, as if to hold onto the unwanted feeling so I can fully feel it. Sensations in the hands and the core. A mental image of a field of sensation and a thought of someone trying to feel without thought. Just sensation. There is no way to differentiate without thought and yet somehow I’m not sure how to know if it’s a seamless field. That isn’t clear. I see that the label “seamless field” is also just thought. “That isn’t clear” is also just a thought, and seeing that, things are more clear.

“Don’t try to perceive “oneness.”
Let experience be undivided — not by trying to make it “one,” but by dropping the idea that it was ever “many.””

In other words, just relax, right? There is a thought about the one who is looking or trying to figure out how to know something without thought, as if it required thought to confirm the knowing.

“That’s the last card the mind plays. “You don’t really get it yet.”
But look closely: is that anything more than just another thought?
Does anything in direct experience say “this isn’t clear yet”? A sensation? A colour?”

No

Or is it only the story saying “this needs to become something”?”

Yes, and there is also a thought saying that it’s a very convincing story. Another thought says that it is completely insane that it’s so hard to drop the thoughts and just see what’s already here.

Hi Rali,

Here is Part 2 of 3 (hopefully!) - I'm trying to take my time with these questions and to really look.

“It has always been like that and it will always be - just the story changes. So how can this probably become experiential?”

It’s already experiential, but the thought overlays need to be seen clearly and set aside, and many of them are extremely subtle.

What do thoughts happen to?

The only thing that appears is the thought “to me”. Then a sensation in the face, chest, belly, a mental image of a body. A contraction in the solar plexus and a thought that says I’ll never get this. A thought of someone trying to get something. Strain in the eyes and tension in the forehead. A thought that says I don’t know where to look. Sound and a label “fridge”.

Is there someone outside of thoughts, being identified with them?

A thought says I don’t want to discover that there is only the senses and thought and nothing more. Again the mental image of a body and a face and a thought of someone looking for something. Sensation with the label “breath”. Sensation plus a mental image of hands on keyboard, computer on lap, legs outstretched. Rereading the question - colour, seeing, plus thought of someone understanding the words but not the sentence.

Hi Rali,

Here is Part 3 of 3:

Are you their listener or are you their creator/narrator?

None of the above. There is a thought that says “I am frustrated because I want to say it feels like I am the narrator even though I know it’s not the real truth, but “feels like” is a thought too, so I feel stuck”. There is a contraction in the throat, chest and belly. Hum of the fridge (just hearing plus the label “fridge”).

Can you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear? Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead? Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

No, I can’t.

Where do thoughts appear from? Where are they coming from and going to? Do they appear randomly or in a structured way? Watch like a hawk.

My nervous system is pretty activated these days, and I’m finding it hard to be curious. There is more impatience and a desire to “get this over with”, rather than the fascination for looking I was feeling last week.

Are thoughts 100% true?

No

What are you, when you don't think about what you are?

How can this be answered?

take a breath and look even softer:
Is there anything behind the looking?
Is there a subject here?
Can “awareness,” “observer,” “I” be found as anything more than thought?
You already saw it: even “I relax all that” is a thought.
So then…
Who/what is left to awaken?

More frustration here. Emotion: sensation in belly, chest, throat, eyes plus thoughts saying I can’t do this and I don’t know where or how to look. Sensation in the solar plexus and ribs. Sensation of fingers on keyboard. Thoughts of future and past trips to the UK. More intense sensations in the ribs, solar plexus, heart, throat, eyes. Thoughts saying looking in this way is bringing up intense emotions.Thoughts saying I don’t have it in me today to keep this up.