More Clarity Saught!

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma
Beautiful looking!!!

Ok – the first thought is that “this is slippery”. “I can never seem to watch thoughts in real time”. Something is hiding here. There is fear around seeing it. Staying with it. The last non examined belief in a separate self feels like its probably here in some sort of idea of a mental bubble. (doesn’t feel as if self identification is in awareness as how can there be something separate from what is happening. The knowing it is happening isn’t different from the happening. And that knowing has no location. Ok that gives me a clue. The assumption or confusion was because thoughts are seen in a different (conceptual) category as if they are outside this process (of knowing outside mental knowing). Thoughts are just sensations arising. Lets look.

Good. But see that too:
The "mind" can't own the thoughts anymore, so it quietly shifts to the body - to sensation, to knowing, to the mystery of being. You say:

The knowing it is happening isn’t different from the happening.
Thoughts are just sensations arising.

Catch it. It's not that it is wrong—it’s quite accurate! The danger is when a subtle watcher creeps back in through the body door. So ask:
Who feels these sensations?
Who stands outside sensation and says, “these are just arising” or "thoughts are too slippery and I can't catch them"?
Where is the one who knows that thoughts are just sensations?
Can you find that one?
Is it in the chest? Behind the eyes? Is it a feeling of spaciousness, a hum, a centerless field?
If so—burn it. That’s the last illusion - the "no you"/"no self" identity.
You are not sensation. You are not the witness of sensation. You are not anything at all.
Only THIS—unspeakable, unpossessed, happening—remains.
So...
Is there a self—anywhere? Even in the felt sense of “being”? Even in the clarity?

Actually it now seems clear that self (me or I or you) is simply a thought – an extra on top of experience.
Great! BUT look further…

There’s no experience here and then a self-thought added on top
There’s no split at all. (We can investigate time and memories if you want)
There is no base layer and extra layer, no raw and refined, no “wholeness” and “intrusion.”
Only this. And even calling it “this” is too much.
Even the thought “self” is not separate from the whole. It's not wrong, not added. Just undivided happening—appearing as “thoughts, sensations, breath, identity, insight, forgetting, remembering, laughter, contraction.”
Nothing stands apart from it, not even the thought “this is whole.”
So no. There never was something added.
There was only believing in separation, which itself was just another inseparable thought – a thought about a thought (secondary thought).
The mirage never affected reality. It was reality, appearing as a mirage - something that just looked like something else in the commentary.
And this is why there are no benefits of this inquiry – like removing the extra so the whole is shinier and therefore no more suffering (for whom???). The whole seeking is thought self-organising – trimming all in the way of flow. And even that is a big fat fairy tale :)

Do you see that?? Is there any resistance coming with that?

Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

Hi and thanks Rali - gratitude for your generosity and time -

You say: The knowing it is happening isn’t different from the happening.
Thoughts are just sensations arising.
Catch it. It's not that it is wrong—it’s quite accurate! The danger is when a subtle watcher creeps back in through the body door. So ask:

Who feels these sensations?

No one. There isn’t a who.

Who stands outside sensation and says, “these are just arising” or "thoughts are too slippery and I can't catch them"?

No one outside sensation. Just sensation including thought, and “I” thoughts

Where is the one who knows that thoughts are just sensations?Can you find that one?

There isn’t one. There is knowing. Its all immediately present. Noone is thinking this. The thoughts arise and are known without a separate knower here.

Is it in the chest? Behind the eyes? Is it a feeling of spaciousness, a hum, a centerless field?
If so—burn it. That’s the last illusion - the "no you"/"no self" identity.

Spaciousness, hum or centreless field are familiar, but there would have to be a location or “going somewhere” – a separation. Its just experiential immediacy – everything arising together (using “arising” metaphorically) including anything that appears at any time as a sense of self. Nothing can be said about it truthfully.

You are not sensation.

No

You are not the witness of sensation.

No

So...
Is there a self—anywhere? Even in the felt sense of “being”? Even in the clarity?

No. Thoughts of self and habitual stuff arises. But in reality its just this, The felt sense of being appears (or not) - not separate from this.

thought – an extra on top of experience.

Great! BUT look further…

There’s no experience here and then a self-thought added on top
There’s no split at all. (We can investigate time and memories if you want)

yes

There is no base layer and extra layer, no raw and refined, no “wholeness” and “intrusion.”
Only this. And even calling it “this” is too much.

yes

Even the thought “self” is not separate from the whole. It's not wrong, not added. Just undivided happening—appearing as “thoughts, sensations, breath, identity, insight, forgetting, remembering, laughter, contraction.”

And this is why there are no benefits of this inquiry – like removing the extra so the whole is shinier and therefore no more suffering (for whom???). The whole seeking is thought self-organising – trimming all in the way of flow. And even that is a big fat fairy tale :)

Oops -letting that in, and it had a slight wet fish quality! No benefits for the fictitious personal self, or any other self...

Do you see that?? Is there any resistance coming with that?

Its seen, although there is resistance and fear – or at least unsettled and uneasy sensations occurring to no one! Let me just check that. Where is the one who experiences these sensations and labels “resistance and fear”?
Nope – no one . Feelings are known – by noone. Thoughts are known – by noone. Its uncomfortable. There are thoughts about it (“it will settle” “I don’t like this””can I go back”?:)). Attempts to manage but there is nothing to manage and nothing separate to manage with.

(The above was written yesterday. Today there is calm: it seems simple and ordinary.)

thanks & love Padma

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma

thanks Rali - gratitude for your generosity and time -

It’s my pleasure talking to you :)

Its seen, although there is resistance and fear – or at least unsettled and uneasy sensations occurring to no one! Let me just check that. Where is the one who experiences these sensations and labels “resistance and fear”?
Nope – no one . Feelings are known – by noone. Thoughts are known – by noone. Its uncomfortable. There are thoughts about it (“it will settle” “I don’t like this””can I go back”?:)). Attempts to manage but there is nothing to manage and nothing separate to manage with.

(The above was written yesterday. Today there is calm: it seems simple and ordinary.)

Beautifully seen! There are sensations and a conditioned story of fear defending an imaginary self, but underneath the story, there is just this appearing as thought running. You can say thoughts match to each other like puzzle pieces. Adding new pieces causes a bit of chaos, confirmation bias comes into play trying to get rid of these new not matching pieces. That’s all brought to a stop by a simple look, which just confirms this is the right piece and the ones that don’t fit, fall away – the story corrects itself, no need for a manager

There isn’t one. There is knowing. Its all immediately present. Noone is thinking this. The thoughts arise and are known without a separate knower here.

That’s beautiful! BUT look further…

If there were no thoughts to label it “knowing”…
If there were no idea that something is being known…
If no one says “this is happening and it is known”…
Then what exactly is “knowing”?
Where is it? What shape? What edge? What border between “knowing” and “known” – where does the knowing end and the known begin?
Can the knowing be peeled apart?
When you see a colour—does the knowing touch the color?
Does it sit behind it, observe it, confirm it?
Or is there just… colour?
Just this.

In DE, can you separate thought from the knowing of it?
Is there any line where one stops and the other starts?
Can you actually separate a thought from the knowing of them? Are there two things?
Is there a dividing line between the knowing of/as thought and the thought itself?
Do you ever find thought without knowing of the thought?
Do you ever find knowing of the thought without thought?

Can you find anything separate from the experience itself, which is experiencing or knowing of experience? Or is experiencing and experience one and the same? Thought divides Knowingknown/THIS into ‘sound’, ‘colour’, ‘smell’, ‘taste’, ‘sensation’ and ‘thought’. Without those labels, what is actually there? And are they made from different substances?
So is knowing any different from labelling experience (aka thought)? What is there to be known without the labels?

Drop the word “knowing” now. Don’t lean on it.
Without it, what’s left?
Just the seeing. Just the sound. Just the sensation.
Not known—not felt—just simply what is. No division.
That division is the last illusion.
Look now! Do not describe. Just stay there, without any label.
What is here when the word "knowing" dissolves?
Tell me what remains without using that word.
Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

Thanks Rali

This (yesterday as I send this) mornings looking began with a lot of thoughts and feelings – assumptions of time and a person in it – thoughts about allowing myself to get lost and wasting your time by distracting myself – the idea that I have to be in a certain state to see this - the idea again that there was someone to get or not get this…etc. Then (realising no need to believe that however compelling) relaxing into direct experience: senses simply arising – no control or need to.

R“Where is the one who knows that thoughts are just sensations?Can you find that one?”

P“there isn’t one. There is knowing. Its all immediately present. Noone is thinking this. The thoughts arise and are known without a separate knower here”

Going back to the original question to check this out, waiting in the empty space for movement of thought.

Seeing there is no choser of thoughts.

There is no choice or choosing behind what appears. “I thought I knew this” It is seen very simply. A thought arises without a chooser. There had been an assumption or subtle claiming of thought – a maker or director. A corresponding lightness, purity, sense of free floating in experience. It is mysterious that this is known/realised without anyone knowing or realising it.

If there were no thoughts to label it “knowing”…
If there were no idea that something is being known…
If no one says “this is happening and it is known”…
Then what exactly is “knowing”?

Hmmm. With regard to sight, colours appear. You could say that they are known because they are perceived. (so its tautological). But if there wasn’t a thought to label it “seeing” or an idea that something was being seen or someone saying “this colour sensation is happening , and it is known”, then its still happening directly. So I guess to say something is known is extra.

Where is it? What shape? What edge? What border between “knowing” and “known” – where does the knowing end and the known begin? Can the knowing be peeled apart?

No, there are not two things to be found in experience.

When you see a colour—does the knowing touch the color?

No

Does it sit behind it, observe it, confirm it?

No

Or is there just… colour?
Just this.

Yes

In DE, can you separate thought from the knowing of it?

No

Is there any line where one stops and the other starts?

No

Can you actually separate a thought from the knowing of them? Are there two things?

No

Is there a dividing line between the knowing of/as thought and the thought itself?

No

Do you ever find thought without knowing of the thought?

No. Sometimes there is awareness of a thought energy or a thought approaching or just catching a thought/thought energy. But then knowing arises nonseparately from that or whatever arises.

Do you ever find knowing of the thought without thought?

No and Yes.A thought is experienced directly without thinking. Not clear here. Is there an idea here of conceptual thought as an active contraction/ the extra thought that someone is doing something causing tension, and the non conceptual being pure sensing outside of thought. I want to say that thought is always known without thought…could you say that sight happens without seeing (or the idea of seeing). There might be some semantic muddling here!

Can you find anything separate from the experience itself, which is experiencing or knowing of experience? Or is experiencing and experience one and the same?

They are the same

Thought divides Knowingknown/THIS into ‘sound’, ‘colour’, ‘smell’, ‘taste’, ‘sensation’ and ‘thought’. Without those labels, what is actually there?

It can’t be described. A sort of vivid vibration wherever attention is. No defined size, location etc.

And are they made from different substances?

They have the same nature. They are not substantial.

So is knowing any different from labelling experience (aka thought)? What is there to be known without the labels?

Just this unnameable direct experience right now.

Drop the word “knowing” now. Don’t lean on it.
Without it, what’s left?

Just the seeing. Just the sound. Just the sensation.
Not known

—not felt—not felt? Feeling into that one! I guess that’s the same as “there is no you who ever felt or ever will”. There is feeling but no separate feeler 😉

just simply what is. No division.
That division is the last illusion.
Look now! Do not describe. Just stay there, without any label.
What is here when the word "knowing" dissolves?
Tell me what remains without using that word

Silence, fizz, all this, indescribable, No separation.

love Padma

p.s.On waking this morning there was a (very) subtle noticing of a thought/ a subtle system reset about seeing the world as material. There was a noticing that it was an adventitious framework. But it really was like a system reset because I didn’t think the thought. Its just that the system had been exposed to direct experience enough and was resetting. Experientially nothing is different. Just a subtle noticing - that I’m mentioning because although ordinary-feeling, its subtly different. Noticing there was no chooser of thought yesterday felt significant.

p.p.s I’m going into a few days of more intense activity with other people from today, whereas up until now I’ve had quite a bit of time to myself to look into your questions. Just not let you know in case I’m later or briefer responding.

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma
Wonderful looking! There is so much clarity burning the old illusions

Let’s take it deeper…

A corresponding lightness, purity, sense of free floating in experience. It is mysterious that this is known/realised without anyone knowing or realising it.

On waking this morning there was a (very) subtle noticing of a thought/ a subtle system reset about seeing the world as material. There was a noticing that it was an adventitious framework. But it really was like a system reset because I didn’t think the thought. Its just that the system had been exposed to direct experience enough and was resetting. Experientially nothing is different. Just a subtle noticing - that I’m mentioning because although ordinary-feeling, its subtly different. Noticing there was no chooser of thought yesterday felt significant.

Yes, no one is doing the noticing. And the noticing is the new self-corrected commentary, done by no thinker or manager. See that?

This (yesterday as I send this) mornings looking began with a lot of thoughts and feelings – assumptions of time and a person in it – thoughts about allowing myself to get lost and wasting your time by distracting myself – the idea that I have to be in a certain state to see this - the idea again that there was someone to get or not get this…etc. Then (realising no need to believe that however compelling) relaxing into direct experience: senses simply arising – no control or need to.

What remains here is the temptation to reflect, to preserve, to narrate. That subtle movement to orient yourself again as “one who saw.” There’s no more seeking… so the only thing left to identify with is the seeing/noticing itself.
When the thought arises:
“This is awakening.” “I saw through self.” “That felt significant.” “There was a shift.”
Stop and look again.
Did anything actually happen in DE?
Or is that just another pattern (labelled “thought”), appearing here, inseparable from birdsong, breath, dishwasher hum, and mild hunger?
And most of all:
Where is Padma now? Can you find her? Not the name, not the role.
The one who walked the path? The one who worried she was too obtuse, who feared she might see or not see…
Let’s look in the history of Padma

You say:

a system reset happened,

yesterday I saw clearly

I’ve been on this path for a long time.

Where is yesterday?
Where is the “path”?
Don't go into thought. Look into direct experience—right now.
There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened. That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.
Please don’t go to thought explanations, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.
Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say - but what actually is.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?
Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

When the thought arises:
“This is awakening.” “I saw through self.” “That felt significant.” “There was a shift.”
Stop and look again.

Did anything actually happen in DE?

Just checking that one out in direct experience! Ok - when the thought “that felt significant” arises its (just) a thought in this moment. As if someone is reflecting on their (previous) experience - but that is an assumption that includes a person - a sort of recorder or recording of events - some sort of template or receiver. It also assumes a past. In DE it is just another thought arising, and in DE there is only the memory of a previous thought (which is a thought in the present moment) Having written that - there is still a veil of confusion ie not immediately obvious - or perhaps its simply that in DE it IS immediately obvious, but theres still the habit of looking to thought for it to make sense.

Or is that just another pattern (labelled “thought”), appearing here, inseparable from birdsong, breath, dishwasher hum, and mild hunger?


And most of all:

Where is Padma now? Can you find her? Not the name, not the role.

No - there is nothing in DE that can be found corresponding to “Padma”

The one who walked the path? The one who worried she was too obtuse, who feared she might see or not see…

No - Nowhere to be found in DE

Let’s look in the history of Padma

You say:
a system reset happened,
yesterday I saw clearly
I’ve been on this path for a long time.

Where is yesterday?
Where is the “path”?

Don't go into thought. Look into direct experience—right now.

Yesterday cant be found here. And there is no path.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?

No, there is only ever this in DE.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

Tuning into now, its just this. No “giving way”. But there is change or movement of colours and colour shapes in the sight sense.

Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

Not sure what an event is or how it might be defined.

Hmm - In seeing - movement - the image of what we label a body (in the cafe) appears to be moving towards the image of what is labelled a seat. Then it is observed sinking into the seat. Then in the seat. However at any moment memory is relied on to record the stages - a series of images and thoughts. In addition, there isnt an actual person or chair or cafe there. Just impressions in the senses arising. Thats all there ever is in DE

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

It doesnt seem to move. Something about it seems still - a taste of eternity - because its only ever here and now. In the visual field there appears movement.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

No

How long does the ‘now’ last?

No time is found.

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

….

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

It never does

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

Just a thought

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Thoughts

Almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened. That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.
Please don’t go to thought explanations, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.
Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say - but what actually is.

What is memory exactly?

A thought in the present moment

What is the memory ‘made of’?

A present thought

WHEN does the memory appear?

OOh - I like that one. Nowhere for the mind to go! Silence

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

Nothing. They are thoughts appearing in the same space - of the same nature (tried this out on a memory from today, and then a thought of a job that is due to happen tomorrow)

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

OOh good point. If a thought of something that happened yesterday arises, how is it known that its a memory thought? There’s a sense of "casting the mind back”, but if that’s looked into that is simply another idea. There is a thought “when did I arrive in Cambridge yesterday?”. Then a pause and an image of driving arises - another thought. Thinking again “it was getting dark and it gets dark around 5pm”. So a series of thoughts.

Then, look at a thought about the future.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

There is a sense of casting the mind forward. Again its a thought. A thought that frames the future as a space in front. Its all a kind of mental mapping - not the actual territory. The future thought seems more clearly speculative/made up, as it “hasn’t happened yet”.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

Never other than now

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

No difference

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

A present thought says so.

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

No diffference

If there is difference and how is that difference is known exactly?

Its only known through the content of the thought. However, the nature of the thoughts are the same

Thanks Rali - tomorrow I won’t be able to write anything. I would like to spend more time looking at these questions of direct experience and time. Finding this dialogue invaluable.

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma
This is wonderful! You’re already seeing it. Now let’s dismantle the mechanics of how time keeps sneaking back in through the cracks.

If a thought of something that happened yesterday arises, how is it known that its a memory thought? There’s a sense of "casting the mind back”, but if that’s looked into that is simply another idea. There is a thought “when did I arrive in Cambridge yesterday?”. Then a pause and an image of driving arises - another thought. Thinking again “it was getting dark and it gets dark around 5pm”. So a series of thoughts.

You know that eerie moment of déjà vu? You walk into a room and it feels like you’ve been there before. Your whole body says, “Yes! This happened already.”
But did it? No. You believed a thought.
Now look at any memory—any “past event” that seems totally real.
Is it different from déjà vu?
Does the feeling of certainty make it any more real?
Or is it just a thought + sensation labelled “past”?
Every memory is déjà vu taken seriously. Just a present experience believed to refer to a past.

Take a vivid memory. A real one. Something emotional.
Sit quietly. Let it arise. Don't tell a story about it. Just observe:
What is actually appearing? A picture? A sensation? A tension? A phrase?
Now drop the label “memory”.
Without that word… What’s left?
Just an image. Just a sound. Just a sensation.
Nothing you can return to. Nothing that ever happened.

I would like to spend more time looking at these questions of direct experience and time.

I can give you some extra pointers to play with. Take each one into experience, not thought. Don’t analyse. Don’t discuss. Just look:
1.Can you ever leave now?
Try. Right now. Leave this. Be somewhere else. Was it possible?

2.What is “before” without a thought?
Not the idea of “before”—the experience. Can you touch it?

3.Does anything return?
Does the sound of a bird come back?
Does a memory restore a moment?
Or is every moment utterly fresh—even the ones labelled “familiar”?

4. If there is no future, who are you becoming?
No destination. Just this. Already full.

You say:

But there is change or movement of colours and colour shapes in the sight sense.

5. Is change equal to or replacement of time? What is “change” in direct experience?

Right now: notice your breath, the shifting sounds, the subtle movement in vision or body.
Is there a sequence? Or just an ever-fresh unfolding?

Does one moment replace another? Or is there simply what’s here, and then… what’s here again?
"Change" seems to imply time—because thought immediately weaves: “This came after that.This is different from before.”
But what was “before”? Look again. What you call “before” is only a memory, and that memory is happening now. You never experienced change across time. You only experience this. Then this. Then this. No timeline. No continuity. No reference point.

Imagine watching a firework explode. Colour. Flash. Boom. Fade. You say: “It changed.” But where is the old firework? Gone. Not hidden. Not behind. Just… not here.
Did it “change”? Or did this happen… and now this…?
So...How is change possible without time? Because there is no change across time. There is only freshness. The river doesn’t flow through time—it is flowing. Not in time. Just: flowing.
And when the mind says: “But it used to look like this…” That’s another thought/”memory”—happening now.

Change is just a label for the fact that what appears… keeps appearing differently. But change is only possible within the framework of patterns and patterns don’t exist on their own – they are a perception/ a label for “something” cut out from the whole, and the whole is always the whole – not different, always this. It's like looking at a lava lamp. The wax may seem to change shape, and the shapes it seems to take may seem to be present one moment, and absent the next. But all that is known is the wax. Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, although it may have seemed to. All that is known is this - nothing can be added to it, nor taken away.
You say there is a movement of colours, but what is moving without the label "colours"? This? That creates immeadiately separation between container and substance (the lava lamp and the wax) where there is no separation.
Time and change are one of the most challenging concepts to see through clearly.
And finally...
Can you find even two frames of experience—side by side—to compare? No? Can you have movement without time?
So then… what changed?

Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

You believed a thought. Now look at any memory—any “past event” that seems totally real.

The past doesn’t seem real, but there is a belief that it - or some pattern - actually happened…

Its as if there is a question dopped ino the mind (or simply looking into a mind space and waiting). Some answers arise immediately, and some, such as remembering someone’s name or doing a hard maths sum seem to take more "computer power". With memories, there’s a metaphorical looking backwards – to the back of the head. Experimenting, it doesn't matter which direction - its the same. Experimenting with a sum and remembering what I had for lunch yesterday- both feel like the same nature of thought.

Thinking about plugging this laptop in 5 mins ago. I have a memory of reaching down and stretching. (Physical sensation of body , sight and touch of the touch of the plug.).

Is it different from déjà vu?

Hmm - Its hard to tune into what deja vus feels like right now!

Does the feeling of certainty make it any more real?

No – it just feels like it. The mind strongly protests!

Or is it just a thought + sensation labelled “past”?

Yes its that in DE

Every memory is déjà vu taken seriously. Just a present experience believed to refer to a past.

Take a vivid memory. A real one. Something emotional.

ok

Sit quietly. Let it arise. Don't tell a story about it. Just observe:
What is actually appearing? A picture? A sensation? A tension? A phrase?

A visual impression and a feeling/emotion. Some words.

Now drop the label “memory”.
Without that word… What’s left?

A story.

Just an image. Just a sound. Just a sensation.
Nothing you can return to. Nothing that ever happened.

Its the "nothing that ever happened" thats sticking. Except in the sense that there was noone recording the event in the first place - just some sort of magical but not necessarily accurate computer. And the impressions that were made were of sensations and interpretations, not entities or objects...

I can give you some extra pointers to play with. Take each one into experience, not thought. Don’t analyse. Don’t discuss.

thanks

Just look:

1.Can you ever leave now?
Try. Right now. Leave this. Be somewhere else. Was it possible?

No. Even if there is dissociation or distraction, its happening now.

2.What is “before” without a thought?

Not the idea of “before”—the experience. Can you touch it?

No. “before” is an idea and can’t be experienced

3.Does anything return?
Does the sound of a bird come back?

Never

Does a memory restore a moment?
No – just what feels like an echo in the mental space only.

Or is every moment utterly fresh—even the ones labelled “familiar”?

Yes absolutely

4. If there is no future, who are you becoming?
No destination. Just this. Already full.

Yes

You say:
But there is change or movement of colours and colour shapes in the sight sense.

5. Is change equal to or replacement of time?

No! Feels like there is something new here. Something about the way the mind imposes an assumption of dimensionality.

What is “change” in direct experience?
Only movement. Movement and stillness. There is no way to say what direction movement is, without imputing. Whether something is moving backwards or forwards is impossible to say.

Also in this very moment experientially its impossible to say if everything is still, or if everything is moving. And no sight is appearing in a particular place. Everything seems to be jumping or moving sideways or wavering. In fact it seems impossible to find stillness in any of the senses - but there is a sense of stillness staying with the flow or root of this moment (this sense of everything happening without anyone who is experiencing it).

Right now: notice your breath, the shifting sounds, the subtle movement in vision or body.
Is there a sequence? Or just an ever-fresh unfolding?

In each moment its just this

Does one moment replace another? Or is there simply what’s here, and then… what’s here again?

Just whats here

"Change" seems to imply time—because thought immediately weaves:
“This came after that. This is different from before.”

Yes “this came after that” cant be found except in thought

But what was “before”? Look again. What you call “before” is only a memory, and that memory is happening now. You never experienced change across time. You only experience this. Then this. Then this. No timeline. No continuity. No reference point.

Yes each moment is experienced as if instant and new. As if nothing ever happened before this.

Imagine watching a firework explode. Colour. Flash. Boom. Fade. You say: “It changed.” But where is the old firework? Gone. Not hidden. Not behind. Just… not here.

Did it “change”? Or did this happen… and now this…?

So...How is change possible without time?

Rali - got this far and then started to get stuck. I keep coming back but decided to just send anyway so as to continue being in connection. I will continue to check in with DE on this. I did write:

This isn't being seen yet (that time doesn't exist). There is a pinprick of light (what if - a new way of interpreting what is arising) in the movement and realising that the dimensionality of a past and future are imposed ie not in DE. That feels exciting/new.

p.s. I keep coming across a fundamental doubt which seems rediculous because its obviously wrong. Its "why is direct experience taken to mean that its the only interpretation of what is happening". Im not sure, but I think the question may be equaivalent to saying "why is not seeing santa proof that he isn't real?" With that question it obvious that you could produce any made up character in that sentence instead. I know it seems very basic but I wonder if it would be helpful to spell it out as if to a child? Or does that take us out of DE, and is it best to trust that it becomes clear?

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma

Beautiful looking!

I keep coming across a fundamental doubt which seems rediculous because its obviously wrong. Its "why is direct experience taken to mean that its the only interpretation of what is happening". Im not sure, but I think the question may be equaivalent to saying "why is not seeing santa proof that he isn't real?"

If a child says: “But how do you know Santa isn’t real just because you don’t see him right now?”
You don’t pull out a philosophy book. You simply say:
“Because the cookies weren’t eaten. Because Dad was wearing the costume." You pull the beard and a familiar face shows up. You check. No need for a belief, or imagination. You verify with what is actually present.

Now let’s apply that to you. That would translate to: “But what if time is real, even if I can’t experience it?” Then check.
Can you find it?
Can you point to it?
Can you taste it, hear it, touch it, see it?
If not, then you’re already doing what the Santa analogy shows - you’re just being honest, not dismissive and arrogant - just direct. That’s clarity.
So the trick here is: “But maybe time is something deeper. Maybe DE just isn’t picking it up.”
That’s the voice of belief trying to survive. That’s Santa in an adult version. You wouldn’t say: “Maybe unicorns exist, but just in a way I can’t detect.” All you have is DE – the senses and thought. Whatever is not in the first five is a thought/ a belief/ an assumption

So why give time special treatment? Why bend reality for memory or identity or linear history?
Just because everyone else does? You’ve seen it - the “world” is built on unquestioned assumptions. And now you're finally doing what some don’t dare - you're not assuming, you are looking

You said:

This isn't being seen yet (that time doesn't exist).

But then you also wrote:

… each moment is experienced as if instant and new. As if nothing ever happened before this.

So I ask you… What more is needed to “see it”?
If no time is found, no memory holds up under inspection, and every “past” is just a present thought…
Then what is this claim: “It hasn’t been fully seen yet”?
Who says that? Padma? Who waits for a final stamp of confirmation?
Is that doubt yours? Did you think it? That doubt is the final residue of Padma, the one who wants a certificate. Let it dissolve.

Even if you still want permission from "science", in modern physics—especially relativity and quantum mechanics—time is not a thing, not a substance. It’s a relational concept—a way to coordinate change between things. But it has no independent existence.
Einstein’s relativity showed that there’s no universal "now", what’s simultaneous for one observer isn’t for another, “past” and “future” depend entirely on your point of view. And in quantum mechanics, there is no clear sequence of events at the fundamental level and “time” doesn’t even appear in the most basic equations. Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist says: “Time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality.”
Even in physics, only change is real. But “time” is just a label—added after the fact, to narrate.
Sound familiar?
Yes, we take it a step further, questioning even “change” as “change” is dependent on labels/concepts of “things” that exist independently and in time (like apples). But that is an illusion. Don’t take me wrong – labels have their purpose. Nothing should be removed or discarded, just seen through. 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?
What seems to be “Padma’s world,” the totality of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. Do you see that?

Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

Thanks Rali! Just back from a busy few days with others and now back home.

Ive been checking this out between things, while driving etc

Now let’s apply that to you. That would translate to: “But what if time is real, even if I can’t experience it?” Then check.
Can you find it?

No!

Can you point to it?

No

Can you taste it, hear it, touch it, see it?

No

You said:
This isn't being seen yet (that time doesn't exist).
But then you also wrote:
… each moment is experienced as if instant and new. As if nothing ever happened before this.
So I ask you… What more is needed to “see it”?

Just checking in this moment

If no time is found, no memory holds up under inspection, and every “past” is just a present thought…
Then what is this claim: “It hasn’t been fully seen yet”?
Who says that? Padma? Who waits for a final stamp of confirmation?
Is that doubt yours? Did you think it? That doubt is the final residue of Padma, the one who wants a certificate. Let it dissolve.

OK ...

But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

Ha ha no

What seems to be “Padma’s world,” the totality of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. Do you see that?

Yes – dimensionality is literally imaginary. There is only this now to be found ever.

Many thanks Rali for your skillful guiding!

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma
I hope you enjoyed your time away – all of it (the good, the bad, and the ugly)!

Dimensionality is literally imaginary. There is only this now to be found ever.

That line alone cuts through centuries of seeking. No time. No self. No world out there. Just this—no parts, no edges, no direction.

Is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?

Ha ha no.

Exactly. Just like “Padma” was never a person—only an icon.

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

Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

So let's review where we are at with the following questions.

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

There is a lightness – a sense of freedom and slight relief. A sense that the system will continue to reset. Otherwise all seems the same!

What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?

More clarity and confidence. Knowing where to go (nowhere)

Is seeking still going on?

Not in the sense that there is a looking for a better or deeper teaching, or looking outside of this – here and now. Here and now feels like a deepening adventure – for no one!

Is there any confusion at all or anything (whatever it might be) you would like to address?

Not really.

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

YES!

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma

I'm really happy to read your reply!

We have some checkpoint questions. Would you like to answer these?

Love
Rali

[Snowmoon44]

Yes please!

[poppyseed]

Hi Padma

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
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.

6) Anything to add?

Love
Rali