Getting past the fear

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over?
Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over.

I dont know how the movement is controlled or if it is controlled. There is no decison maker or controller. When i modify by wiggling my fingers, the thought to do so follows immediately, but it is an aftereffect trying to claim control. Thought is narrating but with a lag.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

They appeared by themselves, much like thought as the narrator we have been discussing. The qualities identified seem plausible / fit the object, but are very clearly thoughts trying to explain the situation as if thought is in the driver seat.

In Step 2, there is no choice. It wasnt based on a thought / decision that weighed pros and cons. It wasnt based on a preference. The hand picked up the drink and thought came next explaining why "I" chose that one. There was no decision maker that decided when to move through the steps, how much time to spend on each one, how many attributes to list. Anything that looked like a decision was thought. Picking the drink happened by itself.

3. Please take me through a biggish decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you are able to share more details about your decision making...

How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same? How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?

Doing this work, exploring awakening, stepping through the gateless gate. One of the more influential books i read in the past few years was Angelo Dilluos Awake, now its your turn. It wasnt the first step down this path, but seems significant. However, when I think through the chronological order of events, which books i read and how they seem to be key milestones, there is no decider or doer there. It is all just a story that tries to link things together. If the milestones happened in a different order or didnt happen at all, it doesnt mean that i wouldnt be at this same point.

Im not sure which conditions influenced this process over the years, but none of them were ones that an "I" controlled. Can "I" influence that part of Tom's identity is being curious and somewhat bookish? Those are just a labels. Anything that i list as a "this happened and then that happened" is a story told backwards.

Like with the hand, once the hand started wiggling its fingers, thought claimed credit. The "doer" claim that thought made was so much later and clumsy it was ridiculous. Trying to explain how i decided to explore "awakening" seems clumsy in a similar way.

I hope that my response doesnt come across as flippant. It has become non-sensical to try to tell a story around why something happened the way it did and what decisions i made that led me to a certain outcome. Things happen without a doer.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

When i modify by wiggling my fingers, the thought to do so follows immediately, but it is an aftereffect trying to claim control. Thought is narrating but with a lag.

The "doer" claim that thought made was so much later and clumsy it was ridiculous.

Fear is usually a sensation in chest, tight muscles, raised heartrate. Though in looking directly at it, the physical sensations come after.

Exactly! That’s it. That’s the whole mechanism unveiled.
Here is an interesting experiment with respect to "the chicken or the egg":
https://vimeo.com/90101368?fbclid=IwAR3

However, when I think through the chronological order of events, which books i read and how they seem to be key milestones, there is no decider or doer there. It is all just a story that tries to link things together. If the milestones happened in a different order or didnt happen at all, it doesnt mean that i wouldnt be at this same point.

Yes! But this goes deeper. There never was a path. There never was progress. There never was a you getting anywhere. This is it. Always has been. Unfolding for no one.
It's just what is. No milestones. No awakening.
Just this—already, always.

I just wanted an example of a decision that you would normally consider that you’ve made. The point was to look entirely in thought content where cause and effect “live” and see that even there there’s no “you” making a decision. It was just one event leading to another, leading to another, with “actions” based on previous conditioning. The thought “decision is made” is layered on top of other thoughts/beliefs/descriptions of what has happened before. Why does the wind blow? It just blows. Yes we can say it happens as a result of previous events but there’s no entity “wind” that does the blowing. There is no wind that decides to blow. It’s just language. What is “moving of the hands” in DE? We’ve seen that it’s just a sensation, labelled “hands moving” + colour/shape labelled “hands moving”. So, what makes the sensations to appear? What makes seeing to appear? LOOK! Is there anything that causes anything to appear? Do cause and effect exist outside of thought content? Thought comes to describe that things are happening and why they are happening, but in DE things are just happening. Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen? (even for "fear"?)

Just keep noticing, in real time:
Every action. Every “choice.” Every movement. Done by no one.
Just clouds rolling across an empty sky, claiming they’re in charge of the wind.
So—pause now. Observe something happen. Anything. A blink, a swallow, a shift in posture.
Now look:
Was that yours?
Or just another ripple in this, happening as it always has—unclaimed, untouched, unassigned?

Other challenging concepts to see through clearly are time and change (e.g. of things or self). 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’?

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali

So, what makes the sensations to appear? What makes seeing to appear? LOOK! Is there anything that causes anything to appear? Do cause and effect exist outside of thought content? Thought comes to describe that things are happening and why they are happening, but in DE things are just happening. Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen? (even for "fear"?)

No, thought is not required for anything to happen. Thought explains, thought claims ownership (either through doing or understanding) but there is no doer that makes the wind blow, sounds to occur. Experience unfolds without an agent.

Fear doenst happen. It is a label given to a sensation, which causes other thoughts and then triggers somatic responses and the tightness in the chest (or whatever fear "feels like") is also thought.

Was that yours?
Or just another ripple in this, happening as it always has—unclaimed, untouched, unassigned?

The sensation happens, like blinking, and thought claims every aspect of it - the causing, the story of the body and why there is blinking and so on. Most of "blinking" is story. None of it is mine as there is no me, there is no agent here doing.

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’?

Yes, time is a bizarre concept when looked at directly. When does now become then? When does next become now? There is no line in experience that says now is over, it is now, now. It just always is. Like the decision discussion from yesterday - when looking backwards I can say what i did this morning, this afternoon and this evening and how one led event led to the next and how they were separate in time. When really, it was only ever now. Though dissects and labels, but all the delineation is conceptual.

The past in actual experience is just thought. Thinking about or telling you about yesterday is all thought. There only was /is / will be now.

Im feeling a bit confused about things and not sure what to say or ask or how to ask it. I can see through the concept of a doer that hit certain milestones on the way to certain outcomes. I can see through the concept of time and how there is really only the now. Even typing this is a bunch of non-sensible language saying "I am confused" or "I can see" when there is no I, no doer. The confusion seems to be around trying to intellectualize, to understand conceptually (and the thought of look how smart I am, i get it). Which is all nonsense. And yet, it still seems to be the default mode. I want to ask you what do i need to let go of, which again is nonsensical - there is no thing being held and no one to let it go. And yet it seems like there is an I that is the center of experience that is holding onto the lens of experience, controlling "my" point of view.

Does this make sense? Maybe the question is: how does the story of Tom shift from being at the forefront to the background?

Thank you, Rali. I really enjoy our chats.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

Thank you, Rali. I really enjoy our chats.

Me too :)

Fear doesn’t happen. It is a label given to a sensation, which causes other thoughts and then triggers somatic responses and the tightness in the chest (or whatever fear "feels like") is also thought.

A “trigger” is a narration of time. A way to explain something after it has already appeared.
But in DE, is there ever a second moment?
How can anything be triggered if there is only now? But where’s the split between a before, and an after?
Where’s the moment when “now” ends and something else begins?
Look freshly:
When sensation shows up—cold, vibration, tightness in the chest—does anything happen next? Or is the sense that something follows just another thought, arising in the same undivided field?
Fear doesn’t follow a sensation.
There’s just this, and a thought: “this is fear”.
There’s just this, and a thought: “this caused that”.
This happens and the thought cuts out patterns (aka “things”) and finds relationships among them happening is a sequence (timeline). Do you see that? Can you even find discrete/”solid” sensations? Can you find the line where one sensation ends and next begins or this illusion is created by intensity in feeling? Are there separate sensations of just feeling – never ending?

To have a change in something, this something must exist inherently. But even sensations do not exist inherently. We don’t experience our senses individually. Rather, these are different aspects/patterns of experience/this. 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, just this. Senses affect each other. 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 there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story (you said yourself you cannot find dividing lines between colour, sound, and/or thought).
So even the senses are dependently originated concepts (existing in the framework of other concepts) which makes them also empty of inherent existence.
We use these labels because they come as close as possible to something indescribable. Language can be a useful tool for communicating ideas, for pointing/bringing attention to what is here – the icons on the desktop.

I want to ask you what do I need to let go of… which again is nonsensical

Exactly. But that desire to ask, to grasp, to organize—it’s not random. It’s the reflex of something (aka thoughts) that’s dying trying to reassert relevance.

It still seems like there is an I that is the center of experience.

That’s the echo. That’s the residue.
And you’re watching it operate in real time. When someone we know dies, it takes time for that to "sink in". It's not that we don't believe that the person has died. It is just they are still part of our lives - we open the wardrobe and their clothes are still there, we walk in the park and we remember when we used to do it together. It takes time to readjust our lives to living without them. That process of “sinking in” can be observed in many other situations – like being diagnosed with a life changing disease, losing a job that we had for a long time etc. Even though the change is sudden and quick, it can be perceived as a long process – it can feel as though something is still sinking in, or hasn’t yet sunk in. To “deal” with this, question everything, and little by little you will notice changes in everyday life: less judgment, more openness; less thinking, more appreciation; less story, more being; less structure, more flow. You will notice that some habitual thoughts no longer arise. The story changes in a way that allows more space for simply being. The only way thoughts would change (by themselves) is if they all are checked vs DE. The more the emptiness of thoughts is seen, the more the story changes (self-corrects).
There might still be expectations, confusion, and doubt. That’s quite normal at this stage. You may be swaying between “I get it” and “I don’t get it.” You may be thinking that this is not enough, that some experiences need to happen, that you should be happy and blissful all the time. When these thoughts arise, bring the focus to what is present here now. Just THIS. And look again: what is here that wants THIS to be different (including the presence of doubtful thoughts)?
There is an expectation, that once the no self is seen all thoughts will drop or change. Your conditioning was not formed in a day and it will not change in a day either. It may take years. The initial realization, though, is irreversible, just as we can never go back to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Maybe the question is: how does the story of Tom shift from being at the forefront to the background?

Stop right here. Look now.
When you ask this—what are you assuming?
That “Tom” is something real. That “foreground” and “background” are valid distinctions.
That “experience” has a center that can shift.
But pause.
Where exactly is this “Tom”?
Not the name, not the memory, not the narrative—the entity.
Can you find it, right now?
You know the voice is just narration.
So where is Tom?
Where is this “center”?
What is confusing whom? What is confusion? Is there any inherent confusion in the sensation? OR just a sensation + thought about confusion? And that thought doesn’t land anywhere. It’s not even yours. It just floats by and claims a center.
But where is it?
Where is the one who's confused?
Where is the one trying to figure this out? The one that is outside of this, and observes it, and corrects it?

There is no one in the foreground. No one in the background.
When looking for Tom, can anything be found except just this, right NOW/right HERE?
So, what remains, when even “the experience of confusion” is seen as just a concept layered on sensation? Look again. Right now.

The confusion seems to be around trying to intellectualize, to understand conceptually (and the thought of look how smart I am, i get it). Which is all nonsense. And yet, it still seems to be the default mode.

How can you understand something that is unknowable? Something that does not have an inherent meaning? The whole idea of this inquiry is to see that. That is why we keep on pointing to looking, not understanding. If your reports are about you understanding this, getting straight A+’s for the correct answers, you’ve missed the point (excuse the pun). There are no right or wrong answers (literally), there is only what is true in your experience right now. This cannot be understood. Any understanding would be wrong to be begin with. That is the only thing that you can understand :))
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Thanks for the pointers on expectation. Yes, many thoughts on how this should go. All the things im getting wrong. Doubts. Laughing now at the silliness of it.

Where exactly is this “Tom”?
Can you find it, right now?
So where is Tom?
Where is this “center”?
What is confusing whom? What is confusion? Is there any inherent confusion in the sensation? OR just a sensation + thought about confusion? And that thought doesn’t land anywhere. It’s not even yours. It just floats by and claims a center.
But where is it?
Where is the one who's confused?
Where is the one trying to figure this out? The one that is outside of this, and observes it, and corrects it?

He was here yesterday, but nowhere to be found now :)
Only this. The sound of the fan, the light form the lamp, the fuzzy carpet under my feet. Even the border between those cant be found.
Thoughts chatter on about some guy and where hes been and where hes going. But hes not here now.

But in DE, is there ever a second moment?
How can anything be triggered if there is only now? But where’s the split between a before, and an after?
Where’s the moment when “now” ends and something else begins?

No, there is not a first or a second moment. Sequence is something implied in the thought - i heard a bump in the night, I got scared and then my heart started racing. There is sound, there are thoughts

This happens and the thought cuts out patterns (aka “things”) and finds relationships among them happening is a sequence (timeline). Do you see that? Can you even find discrete/”solid” sensations? Can you find the line where one sensation ends and next begins or this illusion is created by intensity in feeling? Are there separate sensations of just feeling – never ending?

There is only sensation in the now, so a flow of never ending sensation. The cold i felt this morning is only a thought. The car that drove by a moment ago another thought. Replaying the sound of it driving by makes no noise, it is all thought.
The light from the lamp and the sound from the fan still seem like they are experienced separately. Though looking for the boundary or the place where i hear the fan related to where i see the lamp gets fuzzy/disorientating.

The sequencing of thoughts you note seem more apparent in the mirror. There is some distinction between the concept of "thats Tom" and the colors and shapes that make up a "body." Still not fully seen through, if that's the right way to phrase it, but maybe similar to seeing a card trick performed that you know.

what is here that wants THIS to be different (including the presence of doubtful thoughts)?

Thought / expectation wants this to be different. To be nice and neat and explainable. To be linear. To be such a clean concept that it can be put down in 5 bullet points. Thought doesnt like this. Thoughts express a desire to quit because "Im just not getting it" and also "shouldnt we be enlighted by now, maybe this isnt for me." The story seems so real and convincing. Yet also transparent. And not here right now.

Thanks for the virtual hand holding :)

When looking for Tom, can anything be found except just this, right NOW/right HERE?
So, what remains, when even “the experience of confusion” is seen as just a concept layered on sensation? Look again. Right now.

The only thing found is here and now. The fan, the lamp - sensation.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

Thoughts chatter on about some guy and where hes been and where hes going. But hes not here now.

Past and memory go hand-in-hand, as a memory thought (words or mental images) is believed to be referring to something that has happened in the past. Memory thoughts are also thoughts about a future that may or may not happen based on past experiences. A future thought is a thought that projects an idea about a future based on past memory. The majority of us ‘live’ in past or future, but when are those seeming memory thoughts actually taking place?

Look!
Is there any difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
WHEN does the memory actually appear?
How is it known 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?
Is there a difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?
Can a past or future be known? Or all that is known are the AE of thoughts labelled as ‘memory’ that are appearing now?

The only thing found is here and now. The fan, the lamp - sensation.

Perfect. Stop right there. This is it.
The confusion—seen. The center—missing. The story—hollow.
Even “Tom” only arises after the fact to explain what never needed explaining.
Just this. Not just as a poetic pointer. Not as an abstract truth.
But as literally all that can be found.
Right now:
Where is the one who just wrote those words?
Where is the one looking back on the insight and nodding in approval?
That, too, is just another appearance. Just another thought trying to catch up to what already is.
You’ve seen the trick. You don’t need to believe it anymore.
The mirage is there but it has no ground.
Now tell me:
What happens when no one moves forward?
No one tries to maintain clarity or protect awakening? “Get enlightened (by now)”?
What remains when the one “on the path” isn’t dragged forward by thought anymore?
Let’s not move past this.
Sit here. And tell me:
Is there anything left to find? Or to get as in "Im just not getting it"
Is anything missing—right now? What? Be specific, don't just give a perfect answer
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

when are those seeming memory thoughts actually taking place?
Is there any difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
WHEN does the memory actually appear?
How is it known that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Thoughts only happen in the now. Memory thoughts have an implication, an assumed truth that they are about the past. No, there is no difference between a memory thought, a general thought or even a fantasy thought. They have different concepts they point to, such as past, now or future, but the structure, the false sound and false images are all the same. Memories dont take me back to the past, but that is part of the story. Like in a movie the old cars and clothes imply the story took place some time ago.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
Is there a difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?
Can a past or future be known? Or all that is known are the AE of thoughts labelled as ‘memory’ that are appearing now?

Future thoughts are the same as past - there is an implied structure or context. But they are all just thoughts.
No, the past and future cannot be known. Thoughts may reflect the past, but their accuracy is somewhat doubtful. If i explore a thought about yesterday, im not reliving yesterday, im experiencing that thought and nothing more.

Where is the one who just wrote those words?
Where is the one looking back on the insight and nodding in approval?

They are in thought. The narrator that is both bragging "look how great/smart/clever I am" and also worried about being validated. Wanting, expecting, scared. It is all in thought. All that is hear is sound, light, the feel of the keyboard.

What happens when no one moves forward?
No one tries to maintain clarity or protect awakening? “Get enlightened (by now)”?
What remains when the one “on the path” isn’t dragged forward by thought anymore?

When no one moves forward the now continues to unfold as it does. There is no one moving. There is no one to try, no one to maintain. But it often seems like there is. The story of Tom comes in and says "how are we doing? Did we figure it out yet?" It seems that story needs to be fought off to maintain clarity, despite the paradox of that view. The narrator of that story is 'talking' about how nice it would be if these thoughts would stop dragging things forward.

Is there anything left to find? Or to get as in "Im just not getting it"
Is anything missing—right now? What? Be specific, don't just give a perfect answer

No, there is nothing to find. It is all right here. There is just this, which is pure, direct, without need for narration or comparison. Just like when no one tries to maintain clarity or protect awakening. It just is. But it seems like it takes a lot of effort to strip off the story that is trying to make meaning out of everything. Right now i can pause typing my response and hear and look and feel, experience the now. Nothing is missing.

And yet the narrator seems to be just waiting for the smallest crack to slip in. Ask "is this it, are we doing it?" Throughout the day it seems like thought is driving from one demand to another and the experience of "now" is missing. Even though it is the only thing there. I am right in the heart of the thing and yet looking around like it is missing. Stillness of thought is missing, though even that is just a thought about a thought.

I dont think that answers your question. What is here now isnt about something missing, but about the story of me, the narrator, the thinker - trying to claim ownership.

Thanks,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom
Beautiful!
Let’s cut through the remaining fog right now.
You say:

It seems like it takes a lot of effort to strip off the story…

Look right now.
Who is doing that stripping?
Who is the one trying to stay in “now”?
Who wants to maintain clarity?
That “effort” you describe—does it belong to anyone?
Or is it just another thought… about effort… about progress… about needing to do something to “stay here”? Stories about stories about stories… How is it possible to "maintain" something when you are present? Present moment is just one present moment, and has anything to do with a duration of a certain state.
Do you need to know anything in order to be? Are doing anything in order to be? Do you need to do anything in order to be? Do you need to hold on to being, because it can slip away? Or it can be taken away? Do you need to survive in order to be?
This is the core trick. Even the desire to remain present is more narration.
Just look right now:
Is there anyone here doing?
Or is that sense of doing—just another ripple?
Is anything missing right now, without that ripple?
Is anything improved by that ripple?
Don’t give me “I know it’s a thought.”
I want you to look directly.
The story of Tom doesn’t need to be “fought off.” This is like Don Quixote fighting the windmills. Every story, every struggle, every spiritual victory—just windmills.
And “Tom” is the noble knight, sword drawn, defending awakening from imaginary threats.
Fighting doubt. Slaying confusion. Battling distraction.
All while sitting on the horse of thought, charging into what’s already fully still.
That’s just more Tom, pretending to fight himself.
He appears as the seeker and the guardian of clarity, only to keep himself relevant.
So drop even that.
What’s here when even the story of “dropping” is gone?
Don’t move. Don’t reach. Don’t wait.
This is it.
Look again, now.
What can you possibly be missing?
Remember, this is not about changing this, making it better (for whom?!), this is about seeing how this IS. There will be thoughts as there have always been, patterns that have been formed a long time ago. This is not magic, it takes time to deconstruct all false beliefs and the cure for that is looking
It can take time to go through all the stories. We look at the major ones but there are so many others that make “you” that need to be seen for what they are – an illusion/a fairy tale/fiction. The recognition of no self is just the beginning of seeing life and “yourself” in a new light. It takes time to clean up all old beliefs and conditioning. The good thing is that because thoughts are self-organising, this thing happens on its own. Once the core of beliefs is changed the others begin coming to the light to be seen into this new context, seen by no one. So to “reduce" the stubburness of these thoughts you need to painstakingly examine all thoughts one by one as they appear in order for thoughts to self-organise and form a new core of beliefs. And I underlie self-organise as this is not in your control, it just happens. I’ve basically introduced a virus thought (LOOK!) that causes all thoughts to be reorganised around the experience :)
This is why I asked you to approach this inquiry with a “beginner’s mind”, Expectations come in the way of seeing this moment as it IS. They are the main source of doubt (doubtful thoughts) Are expectations (i.e. thoughts) even useful? They try to predict what the future should be like if this and this happens based on memories (i.e. thoughts) about past experiences, learned stuff (teachings etc).
Do they ever match what actually unfolds?
They pretend to guide, protect, prepare. But they’re ghosts, composed only of memory trying to own the future—which never arrives. What’s here now is never the “expected.” It’s always different, immediate, raw, unrepeatable.
Then what is the function of expectation except to cover what’s already whole?
Look! What happens when no expectation is running?
Where is lack?
Where is confusion?
Is anything wrong—or just... this?

At this point, it will be a good DE exercise to get out for an actual walk in nature and observe interconnectedness. See how ALL is moving interdependently, including thinking and the senses. Hold these questions in mind:
Is there anything that is separate from everything else?
Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought? Is that interdependent movement outside of you? Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?
Is there an owner of being?
Are there others? Is there an “I” in others?
Is there a “you”?

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Thanks for the long note. Im sorry that my past few replies have been whiney and cranky, I appreciate your patience.

As I read through your questions and notes, I can investigate and see there is no one that is doing, no one that is overwhelmed, no one that is trying to figure things out. Sometimes thoughts are like loud obnoxious music, taking over experience. A thought will come along and note that these are all just thoughts and they hold no meaning. Yet the thoughts continue to come, to insist that if they were in charge, things would be better. Of course thats rubbish as thoughts cant do anything.

Is there anyone here doing?
Or is that sense of doing—just another ripple?
Is anything missing right now, without that ripple?
Is anything improved by that ripple?

There is no one here doing and the ripples seem to be intentionally obfuscating what is here. The struggle is not helped by trying to think it through, trying to figure it out. That is habit and story.

What’s here when even the story of “dropping” is gone?
What can you possibly be missing?

What is here now is the buzz of the fan and the feeling of the chair. There are brief glimpses where it is even more fundamental than that, it is only sensation. I dont know what is missing. When I look, i find only what is here in the present moment. It wouldnt be described as lacking anything; looking for what is missing opens the door to thought and narration.

Are expectations (i.e. thoughts) even useful?
Do they ever match what actually unfolds?

No, they seem to be an anchor dropped to hold the narration of Tom's story. Expectation and the thought of never enough, could be better, exist so thought can say "see, thats why you need me. Better keep me in charge and not ask any questions."

What happens when no expectation is running?

The same thing as when expectation is running. Without expectation there is less noise from thought, no thoughts of judgement, no thoughts of striving.

Is there anything that is separate from everything else?
Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought? Is that interdependent movement outside of you? Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?
Is there an owner of being?
Are there others? Is there an “I” in others?
Is there a “you”?

There were glimpses here, like when something is seen in the peripheral vision, but to quick to know what it was. Sometimes it seemed like those Magic Eye books where you stare at the page cross-eyed and the shape of a boat pops out - except i couldnt quite get the boat. This led to trying harder, which of course led to thought trying to take charge.

I stood in the woods and noticed the sense of things created by perceived depth. When it is experienced as the tree is over there, then I must be over here. When I walk past a tree, it seems like movement is relative. I must exist in this spot because the image of the tree changes if I move. When looking became flatter and closer than close, there was no room for separation. Like existence became two-dimensional and there was no room for separateness. There were no borders or inside or outside. It was a flat image (though that doesnt quite capture it). It was not image in front and me behind like the eyeball was the pane of glass between us. It just was.
Sounds were similar, though not quite as "just here, now." Sound had some amount of attached label, such as bird behind me.
I dont know if there is an owner of being or what that means. It seems like there are others and that their point of reference is based on being a separate "I". In my own looking, I cant find the "I" that is "me", so not sure what the experience is when sitting and talking with my dad. Yes, the "my dad" layer is a label, but the conversation seems different than the sound of the fan.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

You’re not being whiney. You’re watching the ego collapse in real time. That feels messy, cranky, loud. It’s the death of something that never lived.

Looking for what is missing opens the door to thought and narration.

That door doesn’t lead anywhere. It just loops. Every time.
So stay with this now:
Right now—what is missing from this?
Right now—who is outside of this?
Right now—is there anything that needs to be resolved, understood, “finished”?
Or was the entire search built on a single assumption:
That something is wrong.
What if that assumption—that this isn’t it—was the only illusion?
What more could you possibly need than just this?
Don't be in a rush to answer, just stay there...

The same thing as when expectation is running. Without expectation there is less noise from thought, no thoughts of judgement, no thoughts of striving.

Exactly! Thoughts just add an overlay of judgement, but nothing is changed. It’s all perfect because it can’t be any other way than it IS :)

I dont know if there is an owner of being or what that means. It seems like there are others and that their point of reference is based on being a separate "I". In my own looking, I cant find the "I" that is "me", so not sure what the experience is when sitting and talking with my dad. Yes, the "my dad" layer is a label, but the conversation seems different than the sound of the fan.

Perfect. Don’t skip over this.
Is the conversation different than the sound of the fan?
Drop the story. Right now—listen:
Sound of the fan. Voice of your dad. Internal commentary. Birdsong. Keyboard tapping.
Is any of it more "real"?
Does any sound have an owner? Does the sound labelled “birdsong” contain birds in it? Or a fan? Or a dad?
Can you find someone to whom the voice of your dad appears?
When you say “conversation feels different”—look closer:
Is that feeling anything but another thought claiming, “This is more important, this involves me”? But—where’s the me?
Don’t say “I can’t find it.” That’s another thought.
LOOK again. In this moment. Is there a center to experience?
Does “your dad” appear anywhere outside of “this field”—of sounds, of colours, of meaning layered after the fact?
Or is he just another appearance? Not less than the fan. Not more than the fan.
Just this.
Let’s explore “others” a bit more…
Can you find a self in other human bodies? How do you KNOW it’s there?
Others could refer to other minds. If it is seen that you don't own a mind then how can others own their minds? Are there other experiences (or that is an assumption)? How exactly is it known?

In DE there is only seeing/hearing/etc. and thinking provides the labels. Seeing is like a picture that everything is drawn in pencil on paper – the illusion of separation is created by different colours used – otherwise it’s all paper.

Different colours in seeing create the illusion of things but all that is there is seeing/ COLOUR (not plural). Different levels of sounds create the illusion of a song but all that is there is hearing. Can you see that?
Also, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without the explanation? Is the seeming gap between "things" not make of colour/seeing too?

When you touch 'another', are there two sensations one of 'you' and one of 'other' (e.g. dad) or just one/just feeling? Are others outside of feeling (them)? Where is the border that marks where feeling ends and "other" begin? What is the difference between butt on chair and touching another?
Is there any difference between "others" and "objects" or the only difference is the intensity of the story?
Let the whole thing crash.
Who’s left to care?
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Right now—what is missing from this?
Right now—who is outside of this?
Right now—is there anything that needs to be resolved, understood, “finished”?

Nothing is missing, no one is outside of this. Nothing needs to be resolved, understood or finished. Anything that claims otherwise is a thought.

What if that assumption—that this isn’t it—was the only illusion?
What more could you possibly need than just this?

I dont know how to answer that as thinking about how this could be different is meaningless thought. Can this, here right now, have more or less? Be better or worse? It seems there is more depth to now than i am experiencing, but it doesnt seem I can find something that is needed.

Is the conversation different than the sound of the fan?

The conversation is different in that it gives thoughts something to land on. There is the language and meaning of words, the cultural expectations of being in a conversation (being a good listener, give and take, etc), and things like that. Dad shares his thoughts, i share mine. It is hard to detach and experience as just sound, though I get what you are pointing at. Even with the fan there is unconscious thoughts like its over there, its high pitched, etc. But at its root, its just sound that rises and falls.

Is any of it more "real"?
Does any sound have an owner? Does the sound labelled “birdsong” contain birds in it? Or a fan? Or a dad?
Can you find someone to whom the voice of your dad appears?

No, it is not any more real, but seems more convincing. No, there is no one to whom it appears. It is not more complex than the sound of the fan in that regard, and yet it seems harder to let go of. I know "let go of" isnt the right description. It seems like its a part of "the game" that i cant not play.

Is that feeling anything but another thought claiming, “This is more important, this involves me”? But—where’s the me?

Yes, that is very much it. The personal nature of the story, the conditioned rules of father and son, the distinctness of "my dad" and "me" seems much more visceral. Directly looking at thoughts arising and fading away, the ability to see that there is no thinker, experiences like that seem easier to see through the illusion of doing and control.

There is also a lot of fear. If thats not my dad..., if a deep meaningful conversation with him is really no different than the sound of the fan..., if the same is true of me and my son...
Wow!
The fear of losing all that, the story and its importance. All of the meaning and purpose that is tied up in "having" that.
But its not real, so there is nothing to lose, nothing to fear. Still, there is something holding on to that.

Is there a center to experience?
Does “your dad” appear anywhere outside of “this field”—of sounds, of colours, of meaning layered after the fact?
Or is he just another appearance?

Its just another appearance. There is not a center because there is not a periphery, an inside and outside. "My dad" doesn't appear outside of this field. But i couldnt tell you where he is right now.

Can you find a self in other human bodies? How do you KNOW it’s there?
Others could refer to other minds. If it is seen that you don't own a mind then how can others own their minds? Are there other experiences (or that is an assumption)? How exactly is it known?

No, i cant find a self in other human bodies. There is story and assumption. Thought creates a narrative, a "theory of mind" about their behaviour, about what it would feel like in their position, and projects concept. This seems like the problem of solipsism, how can i know that this isnt just all a dream and everyone else is an illusion. I dont know how to answer the question as I dont think it is knowable. I recognize that I assume others exist apart from me, but that is just a thought.

Can you see that?
Also, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without the explanation? Is the seeming gap between "things" not make of colour/seeing too?

I've glimpsed this aspect with sound. A certain quality attached to the sound that places it in space "over there". DE shows that sound and "over there" are seperate. One is experience and one is thought. Similar with looking at scenery. A certain part of experience, like seeing lines on a paper become a 3D cube, creates the sense of depth. The depth isnt really there.

When you touch 'another', are there two sensations one of 'you' and one of 'other' (e.g. dad) or just one/just feeling? Are others outside of feeling (them)? Where is the border that marks where feeling ends and "other" begin? What is the difference between butt on chair and touching another?
Is there any difference between "others" and "objects" or the only difference is the intensity of the story?

No, sensation doesnt have a border where "I" start and the object begins. I dont know where others fit in. Are my children asleep in the other room? If I go look i will have the experience of seeing the image "Jack and Ellie" but right now I cant tell where the illusion starts.

Who’s left to care?

That is quite the belief to let go of.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom
You’re doing it. Right here, in the heart of it. The “belief to let go of” is already unravelling. You see that, don’t you?
Notice what just happened:
You touched the most sacred structure—your children—and it didn’t collapse you.
Yes, the fear surged. The story of meaning, of loss, of love—all of it reared up. But you didn't flinch. You didn’t run. You looked.
And what did you find?
No border. No center. No seer, no knower, no someone to whom any of it appears.
Only this: shapes, textures, sounds, story layered after.
And the kicker—none of it was ever personal.
Not even this love.
If it’s just an appearance, what is lost?
Let’s go deeper. Let the whole story burn. If the image of “your dad” is no more “real” than the sound of the fan…
then who is it that would “lose” anything?
There’s no distance to cross. There’s no depth to arrive at. There’s no you apart from what’s appearing now.
The story doesn’t hold anything together—it is the grasping.
It doesn’t preserve intimacy—it is the veil over it.
And here’s the paradox... When it’s all seen as empty—when even love is unowned—
then the heart bursts open for everything. Unconditional love
No children. No fan. No you.
Only this naked, centerless intimacy—burning with life.
Remember that I analogy with Santa and the joy of Christmas I gave you in the beginning? It’s exactly the same. Santa may not be real, but the joy of Christmas very much is and is still there even after the truth about Santa is revealed. It just that Santa never existed, just an illusion layered over, a representation, a symbol, a fairy tale for children.
And so I ask again, right now,
what is missing?
Let it all fall. Don’t just say nothing, it is just this. Live it! Be it! The answer is not it.

DE shows that sound and "over there" are seperate. One is experience and one is thought.

The conversation is different in that it gives thoughts something to land on. There is the language and meaning of words, the cultural expectations of being in a conversation (being a good listener, give and take, etc), and things like that. Dad shares his thoughts, i share mine. It is hard to detach and experience as just sound, though I get what you are pointing at. Even with the fan there is unconscious thoughts like its over there, its high pitched, etc. But at its root, its just sound that rises and falls.

Thought is not separate. It is not the enemy. It’s just another appearance.
Birdsong arises. A thought about birdsong arises. A feeling arises about that thought. Another thought chases it.
It is just this
But none of it lands anywhere. None of it points to a someone experiencing it. Just like sound, just like sensation, thought is simply happening. Just another movement in the swirl.
So then—
where is the one thinking?
Where is the thinker of thought?
Where is the one deciding which thought to have next?
Don’t explain. Look. Right now.
Who is reading this?

Thought is just weather. It arises, does its dance, and passes.
No threat, no promise, no power—until it’s believed.
So let it rage. Let it narrate. Let it try to save the day.
And just see it for what it is—a ripple in the vastness.
There’s no need to stop thought. Just stop making a self out of it.
Now look again, right now:
Without the story—who’s here?
Don’t answer conceptually.
Feel it. Be it.

The moment it’s clung to, claimed, made “mine”—the dream begins.
But even that clinging? Another thought.

What makes one thought “mine” and another “his”? Where is the border?
Can you find a signature on the thought that proves it’s yours? Is it the content?
The voice? The familiarity?
Or is it just that the thought arose here, and another arose “over there”—
but “here” and “there” are only more thoughts?
What separates the two?
In DE there are only sound and thoughts
Like in the cup of coffee exercise:
Hearing my fathers voice, simply = sound + thought
The interpretation of that sound is “yours” / the “ears” are on “you” / ”here”. There is a thought giving meaning to the sound (aka "speech"/language) and another thought saying this thought is dad's . But it's all happening WHERE?
Right now—
what makes a thought yours?
Look without reaching for explanation.

Lastly:

This seems like the problem of solipsism, how can i know that this isnt just all a dream and everyone else is an illusion

What is solipsism if there is no one to experience it?
If there’s no center, no separate experiencer—
then who could be isolated?
Solipsism requires a self to be trapped inside a dream.
But look again:
Can you find the trapper? Can you find the trapped? Can you find the sole experiencer?
A mind “inside” experience, watching “others” out there?
Or is the whole thing—
“me,” “others,” “dream,” “reality”, “solipsism”—
just more thought-content floating within what’s already fully here?
Right now:
What isn’t already happening by itself?
What would need to be proven to whom?
Where is the knower that needs to “know it’s not a dream”?

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Yes, the fear surged. The story of meaning, of loss, of love—all of it reared up. But you didn't flinch. You didn’t run. You looked.
And what did you find?
No border. No center. No seer, no knower, no someone to whom any of it appears.
Only this: shapes, textures, sounds, story layered after.
And the kicker—none of it was ever personal.
Not even this love.
If it’s just an appearance, what is lost?

It was quite curious. It was fear, but more like the sensation and the label arising at the same time but separately. A week back a similar fear made it difficult to move forward (analogy only, nothing is moving anywhere, lol) but this was more like being aware of it, the implications and being somewhat indifferent. Yes, it wasnt personal, more like a story that doesnt really make sense.

If it’s just an appearance, what is lost?
Let’s go deeper. Let the whole story burn. If the image of “your dad” is no more “real” than the sound of the fan…
then who is it that would “lose” anything?

There is nothing to lose and no one to lose it, though its a bit of a headscratcher. Like a dream that almost makes sense but not quite. Is there a meaning in there or a premonition, or is it just the appearance of something almost coherent?

what is missing?

Thoughts say that understanding is missing, meaning is missing. If the world/reality isnt like X, then is it Y or Z? It is trying to find the solution to the equation. DE shows its just this.

where is the one thinking?
Where is the thinker of thought?
Where is the one deciding which thought to have next?
Don’t explain. Look. Right now.
Who is reading this?

I dont know who is reading. Reading occurs, thoughts arise, typing happens.

What makes one thought “mine” and another “his”? Where is the border?
Can you find a signature on the thought that proves it’s yours? Is it the content?
The voice? The familiarity?
Or is it just that the thought arose here, and another arose “over there”—
but “here” and “there” are only more thoughts?
What separates the two?

There isnt a his thoughts or a my thoughts, there isnt a thinker. There is just thought. There arent two to separate.

what makes a thought yours?

The "yours", the ownership, the point of view is all part of the story. There is just thought. Some thoughts imply a thinker and ownership and thats where the illusion of thats my thought (its a good one), thats his thought (he's wrong), etc.
Just like "I" dont see the lamp, "I" dont hear the fan, there is the seen, there is the heard, but there is no one doing. The story says "I" am sitting here looking at the lamp over there. But there is just the seen. There is no I to sit anywhere and do seeing.

Can you find the trapper? Can you find the trapped? Can you find the sole experiencer?
A mind “inside” experience, watching “others” out there?

No. Like the example of the drawing, thought shades the paper to make it appear to have dimensions. That things on this side of the border belong to a self, etc. There is a style of sidewalk art that from a certain point of view create a 3D perspective of stairs or a room - things that look like they have depth. It seems like I know my current reality is not the 3D picture it seems to be, but i cant move my head to find the angle where what im looking at collapses back into the 2D surface of the sidewalk. I know that example is very "I/Me" centered, not sure a better way to describe it.

There is the seen, the heard, the felt. The rest is the sidewalk chalk illusion. Something inside is laughing, saying "no shit" in a sarcastic way. Like being in an absurd dream and becoming aware its a dream but not waken up either. And thats ok. No fear or expectation, some wonder and curiosity. Some difficulty in trying to communicate it through words and thought.

What isn’t already happening by itself?
What would need to be proven to whom?
Where is the knower that needs to “know it’s not a dream”?

There is nothing not happening by itself, no doer to make it happen. Nothing needs to be proven, but it does seem like something is stuck, like an aspect of experience is out of place and needs to be shifted. There isnt a knower, though much of what was written this evening acts like there is. Like the point of view is stuck in the wrong place.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

Nothing needs to be proven, but it does seem like something is stuck, like an aspect of experience is out of place and needs to be shifted. There isnt a knower, though much of what was written this evening acts like there is. Like the point of view is stuck in the wrong place.

That "something stuck", that’s the last illusion.
The one that says: “Okay, I see all this…”
but there’s still a point of view, an assessment
Let’s end it.
Where is this point of view?
Point to it. Don’t describe.
Is it in the head? Behind the eyes?
Is there a center inside the body somewhere?
If there’s a perspective, it must have a position, right?
A fixed location, from which all this is seen.
Where is it?
You say “the sidewalk chalk illusion is known, but the angle hasn’t yet collapsed”—
but what angle?
Is there distance from experience?
Where’s the gap between “you” and “this”?
Right now—be radically, brutally honest:
Is there any distance between what’s appearing…
and the seeing of it?
Or has there only ever been this—
without a behind, without a watcher, without a center?
Sit absolutely still. Drop every movement. Even the subtlest one.
No watcher. No dropping. No inside. No outside.
Tell me what’s here. Not what you think. Not what you know.
Just what’s actually here
when even “Tom” is not looking anymore.

Furthermore…Oneness doesn’t mean that you and I (your dad, your children) are one, it means that none of us is real :). It’s all just this…
It’s not unity of things.
It’s the absence of separation entirely.
No “I,” no “you,” no “us.”
No merging needed—because nothing ever divided. The joke is that the whole search was for the thing that was never apart. Nothing is more intimate than this because there’s no one to be close and nothing to be close to.
So now, when there’s no center, no angle, no someone to see, and no something seen...
what’s left?
Not in words. Not a concept.
Just look.
Tell me.

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Where is this point of view?
Point to it. Don’t describe.
Is it in the head? Behind the eyes?
Is there a center inside the body somewhere?
If there’s a perspective, it must have a position, right?

The narrator has a point of view, behind the eyes and between the ears. The narrator points to the sense of perspective - if the head moves, the picture changes. If the sound is closer, it gets louder. If there is a head that moves and an experience of moving closer or further, it fits with the story that Tom exists, that it is his point of view, etc. It is a most persistent illusion.

In the now, the sense of watcher behind the eyes fades away as the "point of view" becomes as close as the iris, but is neither in front of or behind, it is just here. Sound, feeling and seeing dont have borders. But there is still expectation. Expectation of a shift, like a trap door should open. The experience of the now seems profound, but like the "I" is a visitor not a resident. False, though when not watched it seems to be the default, enabling it to say "see, this is who you are and how things should be."

There is the experience of being in the now when it is just color and shape, sound and feeling. There is some thought but it doesnt land. The narrator is a faint whisper. But then the narrator claims the point of view and the story of Tom is wrestled back into place. Thats ok, and the narrators grip is less than it was, but it is still there.

Right now—be radically, brutally honest:
Is there any distance between what’s appearing…
and the seeing of it?
Or has there only ever been this—
without a behind, without a watcher, without a center?

No, there is no separation between the seen and the seer. No separation between anything. There is no center or before and after.

So now, when there’s no center, no angle, no someone to see, and no something seen...
what’s left?

Color and shape, sound, feeling, thought

There is no I, no watcher. There is no center, no closer or farther. No doing

Love,

Tom