The Gate

Glen
No, don’t step away here. This is exactly the point where it starts to feel like “nothing is happening” or “this isn’t working.” Look carefully at what you just said:

I have not noticed any carryover into the rest of my life

What were you expecting to carry over?
Be precise. Less thoughts? Better thoughts? A different feeling? A permanent state?
Because all of that is expectation—more thought about how this should look.

Did your past not teach you what a computer is…

Slow down. At a practical level—yes, functioning happens. Skills appear. Knowledge appears. Labels appear. Remember the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop. Icons are a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. This whole inquiry is not about making your life better - it’s about seeing how it all works, what’s real, what’s illusion, what’s an icon. Some stories might drop as wrong as a result (with looking) but nothing real could change as nothing real would be lost as a result of the inquiry - self NEVER existed.
Right now, when you use a computer, is there a “past” being accessed?
Or are there responses happening, thoughts appearing, actions unfolding without any visible “storehouse” being touched?
You already saw… Thoughts just arrive. You don’t control them. You don’t know the next one. That’s not a “perspective.” That’s a direct crack in the whole idea of a thinker.
Now here’s where you’re getting stuck… You’re waiting for “carryover into life” as if there should be a shift, a change, an improvement. For whom? Look!
Is that anything other than another thought saying: “this should be different”?
Is there a separate self running your life or not?
Not yesterday. Not in theory. Not in books. Right now.
You don’t need carryover. You don’t need this to “work.” You only need to see:
Has a “you” ever been found—anywhere—outside of thought?
And be honest… even in “real life” situations, when things happen (typing, speaking, deciding), can you find a controller?
Or do things just… happen, and thoughts comment after?
This isn’t about becoming different. It’s about noticing what has never been there.
So forget progress. Forget success. Answer this, cleanly:
In direct experience, where is the one who is supposedly living your life right now?
Find it—or don’t. But don’t move away from the question.
Love
Rali

Hello Rali

What were you expecting to carry over?
Be precise. Less thoughts? Better thoughts? A different feeling? A permanent state?

I expect to have some of the insights gained through answering your questions become automatic and stick around for normal life. Beyond that I, of course, expect to no longer believe in a separate self and less thoughts, more simplicity, and more peace are benefits others have reported and would not be unwelcome.

Right now, when you use a computer, is there a “past” being accessed?
Or are there responses happening, thoughts appearing, actions unfolding without any visible “storehouse” being touched?

No, the past is not being accessed.

You’re waiting for “carryover into life” as if there should be a shift, a change, an improvement. For whom? Look!

An improvement for the thought that I'm a body that should feel great. The looking is done by whom?

Is there a separate self running your life or not?
Not yesterday. Not in theory. Not in books. Right now.

Right now, I don't see a separate self running my life.

Has a “you” ever been found—anywhere—outside of thought?

"I" is a thought.

And be honest… even in “real life” situations, when things happen (typing, speaking, deciding), can you find a controller?
Or do things just… happen, and thoughts comment after?

The body does things and doesn't need a self claiming control.

In direct experience, where is the one who is supposedly living your life right now?
Find it—or don’t. But don’t move away from the question.

Because I'm fasting today thoughts are fewer and there is therefore less of "the one who is supposedly living [my] life." I can't find a location for the "I" thoughts that do pop up and they are nowhere when they don't.

Glen

Hi Glen

Right now, I don't see a separate self running my life.

Good. Don’t move past that.
But then immediately, this slipped in:

The body does things…

Slow down. That’s an assumption sneaking back in. Look again:
Is there actually a “body doing things”… or is there: typing happening, sensations appearing, thoughts commenting?
Where is this “body” as an entity that does?
Can you find it outside of image, sensation, thought?

The looking is done by whom?

Good—this question cuts right to the core. Right now, “looking” is happening.
What is actually present?
There are words being seen, maybe sensations, maybe thoughts commenting…
Now—find the one who is doing the looking. Where is it?
Is there a looker separate from what is seen? Or is there just seeing
Careful here… A thought may say: “I am looking”. Look at that.
Is that an entity? Or just another thought, appearing after the seeing?
Seeing is already happening. Then a thought appears: “I am seeing”
Did that thought do the seeing? Or did it just comment on what was already happening?
So again… Is “looking” something that is done…or is it simply happening?
Stay with the raw fact. Don’t try to explain it. Don’t conceptualize it.
Just verify … Is there ever anything more than seeing…or hearing… or sensing… with a thought later claiming: “I did that”?

less thoughts = less of the one

Careful. That suggests thoughts create “I”, but also that “I” comes and goes in degrees… Look precisely:
When there are no “I”-thoughts, is there a faint hidden self remaining?
Or is there simply no self at all? Is"I" ever more than an empty label/just language?
Is it just a sequencing of thoughts that creates the illusion of a separate I, like the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement? When frame rate slows down all the illusion of movement is lost.
So what is it? What is it that is currently identified with thoughts?
What is it that is standing apart from thought and has the ability to disregard them?
What do thoughts happen to?

Now this is the key point you haven’t fully stepped into yet:

I expect insights to become automatic

For whom? Who would benefit from that?
Is there someone waiting for more peace, more simplicity, fewer thoughts?
Or is that just another thought about a future state?
Let’s go deeper. A thought appears: “this should carry over into life”
Look at it.

Is that anything more than a thought about a better version of experience?

Carryover, stabilization, fewer thoughts - those are all conditions for a future “me.”
Without referring to thought, is anything missing? Is there a lack, a problem, a self that needs improvement? Or is there just what is happening

I can't find a location for the ‘I’ thoughts

Good. Now go one step further:
If it has no location…, if it only appears as a thought… Was there ever an “I” at all?
Or only the habit of thinking there was?
LOOK!
Love
Rali

Hello Rali

Is there actually a “body doing things”… or is there: typing happening, sensations appearing, thoughts commenting?
Where is this “body” as an entity that does?
Can you find it outside of image, sensation, thought?

"Body" is a label/thought, but isn't "typing" equally guilty? The "doing" versus "happening" split isn't clear to me either. If someone asked you if the typing was done telekinetically, you'd have to answer that it was done by a body or a hand or fingers, would you not?

Now—find the one who is doing the looking. Where is it?
Is there a looker separate from what is seen? Or is there just seeing

Without thought there is just seeing.
Without thought no one is doing the looking.

Just verify … Is there ever anything more than seeing…or hearing… or sensing… with a thought later claiming: “I did that”?

Just sensing and a thought at some point claiming responsibility.

When there are no “I”-thoughts, is there a faint hidden self remaining?

No.

So what is it? What is it that is currently identified with thoughts?

It seems to be the thought that "I am a body." That thought doesn't carry the certainty it once did, but I'm not sure it's gone for good.

What is it that is standing apart from thought and has the ability to disregard them?
What do thoughts happen to?

Does "direct experience" net me a gold star sticker? Nothing is my guess.

I expect insights to become automatic
For whom? Who would benefit from that?
Is there someone waiting for more peace, more simplicity, fewer thoughts?
Or is that just another thought about a future state?

The thought of "me" would benefit from less thoughts. A thought is apparently waiting for more peace...

Without referring to thought, is anything missing? Is there a lack, a problem, a self that needs improvement? Or is there just what is happening

Without thought there is just what is happening.

If it has no location…, if it only appears as a thought… Was there ever an “I” at all?
Or only the habit of thinking there was?
LOOK!

Only the habit of thinking there was.

Glen

Hi Glen
Some of your answers are spot on, but I want to slow you down here.

Does "direct experience" net me a gold star sticker? Nothing is my guess.

There’s a difference between seeing directly and giving the right answer. These “questions” are pointers where to look, not a test of your acquired spiritual knowledge. That “gold star” comment, notice what that is. Is that coming from looking… or from a thought about the process?
Let’s make this impossible to guess… Right now, stop and look.
What is actually here before any answer forms?
Take this:

Only the habit of thinking there was a self.

Good. Now forget that sentence. Look again, fresh!
Right now… Is there a self?
Don’t answer from memory (thought). Don’t answer from logic (thought). Look before the answer forms.
Same with this… A thought appears:

I am a body

In that exact moment, is there an actual “I” being pointed to or just a thought saying those words?
Why try to remember when you can have a fresh look???
No gold stars here. No right answers. Only this… Are you looking now… or reporting what you’ve already decided?
Keep it raw. That’s where this breaks open.

Now let’s clean up the last sticking points you raised.

"Body" is a label/thought, but isn't "typing" equally guilty? The "doing" versus "happening" split isn't clear to me either. If someone asked you if the typing was done telekinetically, you'd have to answer that it was done by a body or a hand or fingers, would you not?

Yes, and that’s exactly the point. “Body,” “typing,” “hand,” “fingers” — all labels.
They are useful for communication, like you said in normal everyday life, but not at the level of the inquiry where we are separating reality from illusion (or illusion from delusion). Practical language is not what is found in direct experience.
Right now, in immediate experience, is there “typing” as an entity? Or is there simply a flow of sensation and colour (feeling and seeing), with the label “typing” added afterward?
Same for “body”: Is there a single entity called “body”? Or sensations and images, stitched together by thought into “body”?
Same with “doing vs happening”... Right now, drop communication, drop explanation. Forget what you would say to someone. Look at actual experience - what is actually present before words! You say it’s unclear. Good—so check directly:
“Doing” → a doer behind the action (not even "actions")
“Happening” requires no doer.
So… Is there ever a doer that can be found?
Do sensations say: “I am being done by a body”? Or does a thought say that about them?
No need to solve “doing vs happening.” Just look:
Is there ever anything more in “doing’ than sensation and thought, with thought creating the rest of the structure?
Don’t answer conceptually. Watch it as it happens. This isn’t about denying the word “body.”
It’s about seeing whether anything in direct experience matches what that word claims. An illusion stops being a delusion :)

In the light of all of this labels vs DE lets look carefully at what you just said here:

The thought of "me" would benefit from less thoughts. A thought is apparently waiting for more peace...

Pause here and look. Can a thought benefit from anything? Wait for anything? Experience peace?
Take one thought - any thought. Does it have needs? Does it have preferences? Does it persist as something that could improve?
OR does it simply appear, exist briefly, and disappear. Is there actually a thought that is waiting?
Or is there a thought saying “I am waiting for peace”
This is subtle but crucial:
A thought claims:“I want peace”, but is there anything behind that thought, that wants?
Or is the “wanter” just part of the same thought?
Check it directly (the gold standard). When the thought: “I want less thoughts” appears, is there an entity wanting that? Or just a thought, with that content?
No need to fix it. Just see it clearly:
Can a thought ever lack something… or is “lack” itself just another thought?
Love
Rali

Hello Rali

Let’s make this impossible to guess… Right now, stop and look.
What is actually here before any answer forms?

Sight and looking.

Look again, fresh!
Right now… Is there a self?

No. There is a very strong tendency to bring back a self, but the arising thought gets labeled "thought" quickly - today at least.

A thought appears:
I am a body
In that exact moment, is there an actual “I” being pointed to or just a thought saying those words?

A thought saying those exact words.

Right now, in immediate experience, is there “typing” as an entity? Or is there simply a flow of sensation and colour (feeling and seeing), with the label “typing” added afterward?

Typing is but a label.

Same for “body”: Is there a single entity called “body”? Or sensations and images, stitched together by thought into “body”?

When looking or feeling are present there Is no labeling anything

So… Is there ever a doer that can be found?
Do sensations say: “I am being done by a body”? Or does a thought say that about them?

Between thoughts there is no "doer," but as soon as the thought of a body comes in, the thought about the body doing is often close behind.
Mercifully, sensations don't talk.

Is there ever anything more in “doing’ than sensation and thought, with thought creating the rest of the structure?

"Doing" is one or more of the senses plus thought.

Can a thought benefit from anything? Wait for anything? Experience peace?

No, but it can pretend to.

No need to fix it. Just see it clearly:
Can a thought ever lack something… or is “lack” itself just another thought?

Just another thought.

Glen

Glen,
This is clear. Very clear. But now don’t relax into the answers. There’s still a subtle move happening.

Between thoughts there is no "doer," but as soon as the thought of a body comes in, the thought about the body doing is often close behind.

Stop right there. That suggests that sometimes there is no self, and sometimes it comes back.
Look again. When the thought “body” appears, does a self actually appear?
Or does a thought appear, saying “body”, followed by another thought saying “I am this body”
Be precise: Is that different from before or just more thought content? LOOK!

a thought can pretend to

Careful. A thought doesn’t pretend. A thought says something. Another thought follows from it, based on previous ones. That’s all.
Check… A thought appears: “I am a body”. In that exact moment, does anything new actually come into existence? Does a self appear? Does a doer appear?
Or is there still only a sensation and a thought with different content?
Don’t answer from what you know. Look at the moment it happens.
You’ve seen that there is no self without thought, no self in sensation, no self in thought itself
So check this:
Can a thought ever create what it only describes?
Can the sentence: “I am a body” produce an actual “I”?
Or is it just sound/words… with nothing behind them?
Also… Who witnesses the thoughts pretending? Who/what is fooled by their pretence?
Thoughts appear with content supposedly based on previous thoughts, but is there a knower of thoughts? An entity that believes them or not?
Next time you watch a movie, notice how you get sucked into the story; how emotions come up and judgements appear. Then all of a sudden, there is like a flip back to the room - as if focus zooms out. Observe how it happens. At which point is there a decision to snap out? Is there one that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly? Is it different from being sucked into mind movies/ getting lost in thought? If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?
It’s a story about inquiry going good or bad, but what is happening in DE? LOOK! What is doing the inquiry?
Stay here. This is the last illusion - not that the self exists, but that thought can somehow bring it into existence. Look carefully.
Does it ever?
Love
Rali

Hello Rali

When the thought “body” appears, does a self actually appear?

No, I was imprecise with my language.

A thought appears: “I am a body”. In that exact moment, does anything new actually come into existence? Does a self appear? Does a doer appear?
Or is there still only a sensation and a thought with different content?

No self or doer, just different thought content.

Can the sentence: “I am a body” produce an actual “I”?
Or is it just sound/words… with nothing behind them?

Just words that strike me as funny these days.

Also… Who witnesses the thoughts pretending? Who/what is fooled by their pretence?

I know we addressed the "witness" previously, but what I didn't grasp then isn't grasped still. When seeing or hearing, I'm not thinking about a witness or a body or anything else. Afterward however... the thought comes in that there had to be a witness for me to notice the sight or sound or thought. Help me out here.

Thoughts appear with content supposedly based on previous thoughts, but is there a knower of thoughts? An entity that believes them or not?

Hopefully "knower" of thoughts is essentially the same as "witness" of thoughts and getting clear on the witness will do the job. This may be way off base, but I looked at objects in my living room and noticed any differences between saying what I believe their proper names to be versus some other name. Sometimes a thought saying yes or no would appear and other times an uncomfortable feeling when saying the name I don't believe which may have been evidence of a thought too subtle to notice. So beliefs are just the last thought we settle on?

If there is nobody to believe, is ”believing in the story” actually happening or is it a story about “believing in the story” (more thought content)?

Flesh that out as much as you can.

It’s a story about inquiry going good or bad, but what is happening in DE? LOOK! What is doing the inquiry?

I don't know what is doing the inquiry.

Glen

Hi Glen

I know we addressed the "witness" previously, but what I didn't grasp then isn't grasped still. When seeing or hearing, I'm not thinking about a witness or a body or anything else. Afterward however... the thought comes in that there had to be a witness for me to notice the sight or sound or thought. Help me out here.

Don’t answer that. Look. All the answers are here when looking happens. Logic, theories, remembering spiritual talks, are all assumptions and we are not interested in them. You wouldn’t be here if these worked, right? We need plain DE facts.
A thought appears. That is certain. What else is actually present?
Is there a witness in addition to the thought? Or is there just the thought appearing?
Be very precise here… After the thought appears, another thought says “I noticed that thought”. Look carefully!!!
Is that a witness? Or just a second thought, referring to the first?
You keep adding something extra:

there had to be a witness for me to notice…

That’s logic. Not direct experience. Check it without logic!
Hearing happens. Pick a sound right now… Are there hearing + a hearer? Or just hearing?
If there is a hearer, where does hearing stop and the hearer begin? There should be a clear line demarcating the separation… Is there one? OR is there only hearing present?
Then later, a thought appears: “I heard that”. That thought creates (talks about) a past, a hearer, a story of noticing. But in the moment itself, was any of that there? Or was it added after?

Hopefully "knower" of thoughts is essentially the same as "witness" of thoughts and getting clear on the witness will do the job.

Same story here (literally). A thought appears. Then another thought says “this is known” or “I know this thought” .
Is that a knower? Or just more thoughts, chaining together?
There are just thoughts appearing, sometimes thoughts about thoughts (secondary thoughts) :)

So beliefs are just the last thought we settle on?

Close, but look deeper.
Is there someone settling on a thought? Or does a thought appear with a sense of “this is true”
That “sense of truth”, is it anything more than another thought, maybe a sensation?
Look directly!! When a thought “this is true” appears, is there a believer behind it? Or just the thought itself, claiming truth?

I don't know what is doing the inquiry.

This is what looking is for! Don’t answer. Not knowing is good! Look.
Right now, an inquiry is happening. Questions appear. Looking happens. Answers appear.
Now—find the one doing it. Where is it?
Is there an inquirer separate from the inquiry? Or just thoughts asking, thoughts answering, describing DE, disconnecting previous threads of thought.
Watch it closely! A question appears “What is this?”. Did you create that question? Or did it just arise?
Then looking happens. Did something do the looking? What is looking made of?
Then an answer appears. Did you produce it? Or did it just show up—like every other thought?
Where is the controller of this process?
Be precise! Is there an “inquirer” behind it or is “inquiry” just thoughts + senses unfolding on their own?
What is doing the concentration?
Is there something apart from “experience”, focusing on it?
Actually this is a good time to look at the idea of focus and attention.

Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes. Watch what focus does. Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Do you move it, or it moves by itself?
Hold focus on breath - see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds.
Is this something you control? Or does it happen on its own? Is it possible that this focusing happens effortlessly, done by nothing, no-one?
What is focusing/looking made of? Is it any different than the thought describing what is happening? Is there focus first then a thought? Or there is simply experience flowing and thought layering the meaning of it, telling a story.
LOOK! Did you choose to look on the left? Or there were simply sensations and colours, and thouhts giving meaning to all of it? Just THIS?

Here is a video that you might find interesting:
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3

Focus on the feeling of am-ness/being, aliveness, witness.
Can you tell if there is a being or just being?
Is life happening to a being or as being?
Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human? Or simply a sensation?
Is it what you've taken as "you"?

Is there anything here that stands apart from thoughts / experience or only thoughts suggesting that there is?
Love
Rali

Hello Rali

Look. All the answers are here when looking happens. Logic, theories, remembering spiritual talks, are all assumptions and we are not interested in them. You wouldn’t be here if these worked, right?

Right you are.

A thought appears. That is certain. What else is actually present?
Is there a witness in addition to the thought? Or is there just the thought appearing?

Just the thought when the thought is present.

Be very precise here… After the thought appears, another thought says “I noticed that thought”. Look carefully!!!
Is that a witness? Or just a second thought, referring to the first?

It is a second thought.

Pick a sound right now… Are there hearing + a hearer? Or just hearing?

Just hearing while the just hearing lasts.

Then later, a thought appears: “I heard that”. That thought creates (talks about) a past, a hearer, a story of noticing. But in the moment itself, was any of that there? Or was it added after?

In the moment, the sound was appearing solo.

Is there someone settling on a thought? Or does a thought appear with a sense of “this is true”

A thought appears with a sense of "this is true."

Right now, an inquiry is happening. Questions appear. Looking happens. Answers appear.
Now—find the one doing it. Where is it?

Nowhere.

Be precise! Is there an “inquirer” behind it or is “inquiry” just thoughts + senses unfolding on their own?

Just thoughts and senses doing their thing.

Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes. Watch what focus does. Focus on focusing, attention itself.
Do you move it, or it moves by itself?

It goes where it goes all by itself.

What is focusing/looking made of?

Is it not made of what is focused on?

Is it any different than the thought describing what is happening?

It seems to be what the descriptive thought is pointing to.

Is there focus first then a thought?

Yes, if the thought is about what was just focused on.

Focus on the feeling of am-ness/being, aliveness, witness.
Can you tell if there is a being or just being?

Without thought I can't tell, but would side with just being if forced to chose. Isn't "witness" a taboo word?

Is life happening to a being or as being?

I'm not sure what "as being" means, though it sounds the better of the two.

Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human? Or simply a sensation?

Just a sensation.

Is it what you've taken as "you"?

That and the visual image of the body and the voice in the head.

Is there anything here that stands apart from thoughts / experience or only thoughts suggesting that there is?

As far as I can tell, it is all thoughts/ experience.

Glen

Glen,
Some parts are really clear. You’re not missing anything fundamental now, you’re just hesitating to fully stand in it. I liked that:

As far as I can tell, it is all thoughts/experience.

Don’t soften that. Keep on checking if anything contradicts it.
Let’s go straight to some hiding places:

That and the visual image of the body and the voice in the head.

Look again.
How is it known that thoughts appear in your head and become the ‘voice in your head’?
Have you ever been able to record thoughts as they spontaneously arise and then play them back in order to hear them, and to hear that they are in your voice?
So do thoughts actually have a sound? Or is the ‘voice in the head’ simply thoughts about sound? Can thoughts be felt, smelled, tasted, heard or seen, or are they just known?
visual image → seen
voice in the head → thought
Where is the “you” in either of those?
Is the image aware? Is the voice aware? Or are both just appearances?

Without thought I can't tell, but would side with just being if forced to choose.

I'm not sure what "as being" means

Good, don’t choose. Look.
When there is no thought, is there a “being” as something/someone? Or just what is happening?
Being in this case is not synonymous with witness - it was meant to point to the dynamic nature of reality. There are no things (subjects or objects) but just flow. No nouns but verbs when it comes to tying language to DE.
being = happening = isness/thusness/suchness = THIS
You keep almost creating something subtle. You keep gravitating towards “witness”, “presence”/”being” (in that sense).
All of these can quietly become a new “self.” But you saw yourself there is no presence or witness but

Just a sensation.

You even subtly calling it “focus”. Look again at this very carefully:

It seems to be what the descriptive thought is pointing to.

Is there focus first then a thought?

Yes, if the thought is about what was just focused on.

You are on the right track but let’s see this through properly… A thought says: “there was focus”
Now look, is that “focus” actually found…or is there: seeing, sensation, ... , and then a thought about “focus”?
Let’s make this simple. Pick something to “focus” on. A sound, a sensation, anything. Now check:
Is there a separate thing called “focus” that is applied to the object?
Is there even picking?
Or is there just the object appearing (sound, sensation, etc.)?
Look closer. Without the thought “focus”, what is actually there?
Is there “focus” as something detectable? Or just seeing, hearing, feeling, …
A thought appears “I was focusing”. Does that thought point to something real? Or is it creating the idea of “focus” after the fact?
Can “focus” be found as anything other than a thought label
Is there anything else, BUT what is appearing with a story added later?

Now the final piece:

Just thoughts and senses doing their thing.

Look carefully at that sentence. “Senses doing their thing” still suggests something doing. Strip it further.
There are just seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling, thinking. Just THIS. That’s it.
No owner. No doer (in any form, even as senses). No observer. No inquirer.
So look carefully…
Is there anything here that is separate from just THIS, controlling it, or even inside of it as a center?
Or is there only what is happening including the thoughts occasionally claiming there is more?
Check: Was there ever a “you” at all… or only the story of one appearing in thought?
Don't conclude or remember. Always have a fresh LOOK!
Love
Rali

Hello Rali

If DE is the five senses plus arising thought, how many seconds before arising thought becomes dominating thought and therefore no longer DE?

How is it known that thoughts appear in your head and become the ‘voice in your head’?

I picked up that term years ago from Eckhart Tolle. I don't know that the silent words appear in my head. The thoughts that use my vocal chords have a manifestation in my head.

Can thoughts be felt, smelled, tasted, heard or seen, or are they just known?

Just known.

visual image → seen
voice in the head → thought
Where is the “you” in either of those?
Is the image aware? Is the voice aware? Or are both just appearances?

No "me" in sight or thought. Image and voice are just appearances.

When there is no thought, is there a “being” as something/someone? Or just what is happening?

When thought leaves, there is just one of the five senses.

Can “focus” be found as anything other than a thought label
Is there anything else, BUT what is appearing with a story added later?

What can be observed appears, then the labels come later.

Is there anything here that is separate from just THIS, controlling it, or even inside of it as a center?

If arising and arisen thoughts are part of THIS then THIS is the whole show.

Check: Was there ever a “you” at all… or only the story of one appearing in thought?

The story of "me" appearing so often that I didn't see it as just a story.

Glen

Hi Glen
This is it. You’ve said it plainly now:

The story of ‘me’ appearing so often that I didn't see it as just a story.

Stay with that, but tighten the last loose threads you raised.

How many seconds before thought becomes dominating thought?

Look. Is there actually a timeline/ a threshold/ a measurable shift
Or is there simply thought appearing, then more thought appearing?
The idea of “dominating” is already another thought about thought.
On a practical level, there are thoughts talking about DE (what is here), which are useful (part of the flow). But then there are secondary thoughts (thoughts about thoughts) - judging the DE, basing it on labels taken for real “things”, assuming “good”, “bad” to be absolute measures and not conditioned labels.
Perceptions change (on their own) when there is more seeing what really is happening. The more looking, the less “dominance”/ the less of secondary thoughts / the less non existing entities. Self-organisation in progress

Thoughts are just known

Good. Now check:
Does “known” require a knower? Or is “known” just another way of saying thought appears??

When thought leaves, there is just one of the five senses.

I think it’s time to look at this deeper. Look again.
Is there “one of the five senses” or just what is appearing?
The classification “five senses” is thought.
Close your eyes and allow a thought or a series of thoughts to appear. Continue to pay attention to thoughts as they appear for a few more seconds. With your eyes still closed, listen to whatever sound is present for several moments. Now, go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.
Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

We don’t experience our senses individually. Rather, these are different aspects/labels of experience. Thought tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue. In DE, though, it is seen as a one experience. Although speech is perceived through the ears, what we see can change what we hear. In this video, a man produces the same syllable over and over again. If you watch his mouth, you’ll hear the syllable “fah,” but if you look away, you’ll hear “bah.” Although your ears hear “bah,” your eyes see “fah”. This phenomenon is known as the McGurk effect. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )

Another example of sensory interaction is how both taste and smell are vital for savouring food (flavour). If smell is lost or impaired, for instance, the taste of food will also be impaired, even if taste receptors on the tongue are working fine.
Here is a fun video that demonstrates how a relationship between sight and touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DphlhmtGRqI
Even though it might look as if there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story. So even the senses are dependently originated/empty of inherent existence labels.

If arising and arisen thoughts are part of THIS then THIS is the whole show.

Yes. Now don’t turn that into a concept. Check it:
Is anything outside of THIS? Anything observing it, controlling it, standing apart from it?

The thoughts that use my vocal chords have a manifestation in my head.

Slow that right down...
Can you find a location where thoughts occur?
Is there an actual place called “head” in direct experience?
Or is there sensation (pressure, tingling, etc.), a mental image of a head, a thought saying “this is where thoughts happen”?
A sound (labelled “vocal chords”) happens. That sound is heard. Fine. But the thought that precedes it, where is that? Can you point to it?
Is it inside something? Or is “inside the head” just another thought about where it is?
Does thought appear in a location? Or does it simply appear…
Furthermore… Is it actually heard (like a sound through the ears)? Or is it known as a thought?
Does it have volume, a direction, a distance? Or are those assumed?
So is there a container (a head), inside which the voice is happening?
Or is there the thought/”voice”, plus a mental image of a head, plus a thought saying “this is inside”
When a thought appears as a “voice”, is there a speaker? Or just voiceless words/thoughts/mental sound
with a thought afterward saying: “that was me thinking”
If the “voice” is just another appearance, what happens to the idea of a thinker behind it?

Now the key part:
Does the actual voice/speech belong to someone? To Glen? To his vocal chords?
Or even with the actual speech (voice) there are just sensations, thoughts and sound happening?

Look! Is there even a trace of a real “you” or only what is happening and sometimes a thought saying “this is me”?
If it’s not here now was it ever?
LOOK! These are pointers for continuous looking. The shift of perception happens in looking not in content/logical conclusion

Love
Rali

Hello Rali

Does “known” require a knower? Or is “known” just another way of saying thought appears??

When the thought appears the thought is all there is.

Now, go back and forth between thoughts and the sound.
Does the sound appear in a different place to thoughts?
Can you find an actual line/wall/boundary that divides the thoughts and the sound? Or is the line a mental construct?

There is no boundary between them.
I loved the YouTube videos you sent me.

Is anything outside of THIS? Anything observing it, controlling it, standing apart from it?

Only thought can claim there is, so let me get clear on something: the thought arising is part of what is, but not the content of the thought?

Or is there the thought/”voice”, plus a mental image of a head, plus a thought saying “this is inside”

You got me there, as I suspected you would.

Does the actual voice/speech belong to someone? To Glen? To his vocal chords?
Or even with the actual speech (voice) there are just sensations, thoughts and sound happening?

You alerted me to an automatic thought, but a thought nonetheless. It makes me laugh to imagine how different it would be to not associate this voice with Glen, but it must be achievable.

Is there even a trace of a real “you” or only what is happening and sometimes a thought saying “this is me”?

The second one.

Glen

Hi Glen
You’re seeing it cleanly now, but there’s still a tiny hesitation to fully own what’s already obvious.

The second one.

Are you agreeing with a statement or are you reporting what you’re seeing right now?
Let’s tighten the last pieces.
the thought arising is part of what is, but not the content of the thought?
Look carefully. A thought appears. Can you separate the thought from its content?
Or is the “content” just… the thought itself?
There isn’t thought + something else it points to. There is just the thought. The idea that it refers to something real is another thought.

It makes me laugh to imagine how different it would be to not associate this voice with Glen

Good! Stay with that. That laugh is recognition., because look…
The “voice” is just words appearing, exactly like words on a screen, words spoken by someone else. Only difference? A thought says “this one is me”
Check it directly! When the voice appears, does it carry a tag “belongs to Glen”
Or does that tag come as a separate thought?

it must be achievable

No. There is nothing to achieve.
Without changing anything, without removing thoughts, without improving anything, is there a self here? Or just what is happening and sometimes a thought saying “this is me”
If the “me” is only ever a thought about what is happening, then what exactly would “no longer associating it with Glen” even mean? Who would do that?
There is nothing to fix, nothing to achieve. Just this:
Love
Rali