The Gate

Hi Tom

Earlier today there was a pure glimpse of the immediate this (not sure how better to describe). It was still and immediate, time stood still, thoughts didn't land, no labels and no labels needed. It didnt seem to last long by clock time, but the moment was either beyond time or stretched time out. I am describing too much.

What i experienced earlier is still here right now, and yet it feels like the veil is back up. Difficult to answer these questions based on the memory of a glimpse.

Yes. You saw it. Not a glimpse—but the absence of the one who could ever glimpse.
And now thought spins the story:
"It’s gone."
"I lost it."
"It didn’t last."
"How do I get back?"
This is not about returning to a state—an extraordinary moment, a feeling of stillness, clarity, silence. Please drop this expectation! It's not a new way of seeing, feeling, smelling,...! It's about seeing what is here and what is not in a normal, ordinary, plain everyday stuff.
What made it seem special? Only the contrast—compared to what?
Only the thought that “this is it”—and the thought that “this is not.”
But “this” has never been anything else.
There was never a “state.” Never a “Tom” who glimpsed. Never a veil.
Only the story about a state. A thought about clarity. A memory about time stopping. An assessment about how this is better than that.
Right now—strip it. No “experience.” No “state.” No “watcher.” No “glimpse.” No one to lose it. No one to chase it.
Not special. Not profound. Not “spiritual.”
Just this—ordinary, seamless, ungraspable.
And when the thought says,
“But it felt different before…”
See that too.
Not as a problem. Not as something to fix. But as the very proof:
There is nothing but this, even when it seems like there isn’t. That thought is the only obstacle to seeing this as it IS, to peace and silence right now :)
Look freshly. Not for it.
Look for what’s in the way. And then see it too is just this—without edges, without a knower, without anything to hold.

Where is the center?
Where is the one looking?
Where is the watcher?

I dont know. It seemed like I directly experienced what you were pointing at, but am now going from thought and memory, which seems futile.

Yes, you don’t know. I’m not just pointing, I’m also asking – where exactly is that center? The mini me in the armchair enjoying (or not) the show? Please show me
Right now—not remembering, not narrating, not trying to recapture or “understand”…
is there a watcher?
What exactly is looking, in this instant?
Without the thought “I am looking”—what’s here? If there’s no image, no claim, no memory…
what’s left?

I’d like to ask you to explore this SENSE of self very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it. Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire:

Does the sense of self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?
Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?
Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?
What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
What is found? What is actually present?

What discerns it, distinguishes it, filters it out from "not me", etc.?
If and when that sense of "me" arises, what creates and/or notices it?
When there is a sense of "me", and thus "not me" as well, look for what "in here" looks out at what is "out there" (i.e., "not me")?
And having experienced a "me" your whole life: was it because you identified with an aspect of experience (e.g. sensation), or identified as an aspect of experience? Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?

Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

I'd like to take another day with this.

Thanks,

Tom

Hi Rali,

I'd like to take another day to work on these. The thought cycle of "Toms Story" has been a runaway train today and I dont want to waste your time with responses that are so mired in thought. Im not sure the protocol, or if there is one, and hope its ok if I keep sitting with these pointers.

Thanks,

Tom

Hi Tom,
There is no protocol, no timeline, no “right way.”
If the thought cycle is raging, good. Let it rage—without grabbing it. Let the whole "Tom’s Story" run at full volume and just… don’t pick it up.
Don't do anything with it.
No fixing. No judging. No getting closer. No backing off.
Just this unstoppable train of thought—seen without a passenger.
Can you find the one it’s happening to?
Who is being “taken over” by it?
Look now—not tomorrow, not when it's quiet—now, in the storm.
Nothing real is ever at risk.
Stay in the fire. I’m right here.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Work has been busy and stressful and that has triggered a dialogue of my contribution not being valued. Nothing really special, though it feels very personal and has the thought cycle going. Throughout the day ill take time to sit and try to find the "Tom" this is all about. I cant find anything other than thought, and i cant find where the thoughts are landing, other than the reverberating echoes of the narrator and the listener (both thought) ebbing and flowing. I can even see on my smart watch stress levels rise.

When i look for the story teller and the listener, the thoughts die down. But I also cant find the one looking for the narrator and listener. I cant find the one who does or doesn't "grab" it. Its frustrating as I cant find any of the characters in the story, and yet "I" am very stressed out with the thought cycle and all the noise.

I do see the value in continuing to sit with it and explore. So I guess its really a gift and I should be thankful i've been given a big opportunity to see that it is all thought.

Can you find the one it’s happening to?

No. There is no one there

Who is being “taken over” by it?

There is no one to take over. Just thoughts piling on with the illusion that the subject of the story is real, should be in control, and is able to do something.

Love,

Tom

Hi Tom
You see it—and yet there's still frustration, still the sensation of being “in it.”
Let’s go deeper. Right now:
Drop the whole story of stress. Not the experienced—just the internal narrative about it.
Drop “Tom,” drop the watch, drop “value,” drop “work.”
What’s actually here?
Don’t name it. Let the rawness be felt. Let sensation stay unlabelled.
Is there truly anything personal in it?
This tension—this tightness—what makes it “yours”?
Look deeper… without the label “frustration”, “tension”, there is a sensation. Stay with it and look:
Does the raw sensation contain any frustration or tension? Is the sensation frustrated? Where exactly is the frustration (without counting the story)? How is that sensation different from “toes wriggling”?
Thought gives them "location" (mapped on the mental image of the body). Do they really have a location? Maybe different intensity but besides that what makes the one frustration and the other toes? Does the sensation “toes” contain any actual toes? OR are they both just indescribable (though experientable) this? What is there without the story of stress and frustration?

When i look for the story teller and the listener, the thoughts die down. But I also cant find the one looking for the narrator and listener. I cant find the one who does or doesn't "grab" it. Its frustrating as I cant find any of the characters in the story, and yet "I" am very stressed out with the thought cycle and all the noise.

Is there any line between sensation and awareness, or thought and awareness? Or is that boundary also thought?

Can you find even one thought—just one—that isn’t claiming a character (teller, listener, witness, observer, awareness, experiencer, SELF, etc)?
Where is this “I” that is supposedly entangled in it all?
This isn’t about calming the storm in whatever form it presents itself.
It’s about seeing that no one was ever in it.
Tell me:
What makes the noise seem like yours in any way? What makes it your responsibility to deal with??
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Thanks for these pointers. How silly i have been worked up over the story.

What’s actually here?

Sensation and thought, neither good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant.

Is there truly anything personal in it?

Not at all. It seems like the sensation in the body is linked to the story and the story is linked to the feeling in the body. But it is all just labels.

This tension—this tightness—what makes it “yours”?

The label says this is tension, this is bad. That "I am stressed because x, y and z." The tension is in "my body" and the story is about "Tom." All of which implies a subject, a me, without there actually being one

Does the raw sensation contain any frustration or tension? Is the sensation frustrated?

No. Its as neutral as a plucked guitar string. The story and the vibration seem to go together, but all of that connection is just in thought and not in the feeling.

How is that sensation different from “toes wriggling”?

Its not. The difference is only in the story told about the feeling, the meaning given to that sensation.

what makes the one frustration and the other toes?

I dont know. When identified with the body, i can say that my toes are down there and wiggle like this and tension is in my chest and feels like tightness. In direct experience, its just a hum or a buzzing and difficult to discern between the two.

Does the sensation “toes” contain any actual toes? OR are they both just indescribable (though experientable) this?

No, there are no toes and no tension in the chest or shoulders. Not sure how to describe them than the experience of this

What is there without the story of stress and frustration?

A feeling and thought

Is there any line between sensation and awareness, or thought and awareness? Or is that boundary also thought?

I think those fall into the semantic nature of language. Sensation and awareness go together, different words for the same thing or there isnt one without the other. Yes, the attempt to label them as separate is thought.

Can you find even one thought—just one—that isn’t claiming a character (teller, listener, witness, observer, awareness, experiencer, SELF, etc)?

No. They seem to all be a fractal version of narrator/listener. Maybe pretending to be a disinterested observer, but thought nonetheless.

Where is this “I” that is supposedly entangled in it all?

There is no I, only the imaginary Tom that this all seems to be about

What makes the noise seem like yours in any way? What makes it your responsibility to deal with??

The story is about Tom and that he is threatened. There is still a sense of a "me" that is identified with this story. In looking through this, it seems as relevant to "me" as tomorrow's forecast in Antarctica.

Thanks Rali.

Love,

Tom

Hi Tom
Perfect. Keep going—don’t let it slide into reflection.

The story is about Tom and that he is threatened. There is still a sense of a "me" that is identified with this story.

Right now—is there anything left that needs to be done?
Is there a self stuck, or just a story of one?
Don’t argue with the “me.” Don’t try to fix or silence it. Instead—look.
Where is this “me”? Not the sense of it. The actual thing. We’ve seen that “sense of” is a subtle mental body image with very subtle sensations. But it's good to remember that we can only experience see, hear, feel, taste, smell and thought. Anything not in the first five is thought.

If “me” is identified with the story, then:
Where is it located?
What shape is it?
How do you know it’s not just the story talking about itself?
Don’t describe what you think you’ll find.
Look.
Where exactly is the one who says: “I’m identified”?
Find it. Or admit it was never there.

You saw it clearly:

In looking through this, it seems as relevant to ‘me’ as tomorrow's forecast in Antarctica.
Good. Now:

Drop all commentary. Drop Tom. Drop dropping.
What’s here without even the label “here”?
(Not the thought about it. The thing itself.)
Don’t answer—see.
And stay there. Until even “there” disappears.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Right now—is there anything left that needs to be done?

No, it is all unfolding as it does and no doer that could get anything done.

Is there a self stuck, or just a story of one?

Just a story

Where is this “me”?

It doesn't exist / only exists as a story, an assumed subject of the experience.

Where is it located?

In thought

What shape is it?

Thought shaped, lol

How do you know it’s not just the story talking about itself?

Its the magician sleight of hand, always another thought popping up observing thought as if it were the "me" watching, listening, experiencing.

Where exactly is the one who says: “I’m identified”?

It was never there

What’s here without even the label “here”?

The seen, the heard, the felt, and thoughts

Sat with this for a long while tonight and will go back and sit some more. "There/here" hasnt disappeared, but the "just this" sense is experienced as more basic and fundamental. When looking for who is having the experience of seeing, hearing and feeling, there isnt a "me" "doing" things, but then what is left? Experience is occurring, yes, but who sees the couch, who hears the fan? Is this a path of thought and labeling? It seems that without the truth of who/what is having this experience, the fact that "I" am not doing it is philosophical. And yes, this is conceptualizing too much.

Thanks for the pointers, Rali.

Love,

Tom

Hi Tom
Wonderful!

Sat with this for a long while tonight and will go back and sit some more. "There/here" hasn’t disappeared, but the "just this" sense is experienced as more basic and fundamental.

But why would experience (here/there) change all of a sudden? Experience has never changed. The fan hums, the couch appears, sensation moves through the body—
all exactly as before.
The only difference?
NB!!! A narrative no longer gets believed (icons on your desktop). It used to say:
“I am here, and I am experiencing this.”
Now it still tries—but it falls flat. The story runs… and it’s just noise. No center. No owner.
Even “I’m not the doer” becomes another story if it's held as a thought.
Even “just this” becomes poison if it's reified.
So the shift isn’t in what appears. It’s in what is no longer assumed.
There never was a seer, thinker, doer, knower—only seeing, thinking, doing, knowing.
Just this. Still this.
And no one here to own it.
So now ask:
Was there a center (a reference point for here) before that disappeared now? Do you expect seeing to change (become flatter or something)?
Or was it always just this, all along, without a reference point?
Burn that in. Relentlessly. Until even that is gone.

“Here” and “there” are concepts.
Where is “here” located?
Compared to what?
Who’s measuring the distance?
Without a center—no measure. Without measure—no separation. Without separation—no “here,” no “there.”
Only this. Undivided.

So again:
Where is the center?
Is it a place? A sensation? A position mapped on amental picture of the head, an imaginary "behind the eyes"?
Or is it just another thought saying “this is where I am”?
Can you find it? Right now? LOOK! Or just the experience, centerless, already whole?
Let that sink in until the question can’t even form.

When looking for who is having the experience of seeing, hearing and feeling, there isnt a "me" "doing" things, but then what is left? Experience is occurring, yes, but who sees the couch, who hears the fan? Is this a path of thought and labeling? It seems that without the truth of who/what is having this experience, the fact that "I" am not doing it is philosophical. And yes, this is conceptualizing too much.

Good. Now stop. Don’t reach for who is having the experience. Don’t reach for what is left.
Just drop the question mid-air.
You said:

there isn’t a 'me' 'doing' things

Right. Then:
Who cares who sees the couch?
Who needs to know who hears the fan?
—That’s the story creeping back in.
Look freshly now:
Is there anything missing from this exact moment?
Is there any actual need for a seer, hearer, feeler—if this is already happening?
Right now:
Sound is.
Sight is.
Sensation is.
Where’s the gap that needs to be filled by a “truth of who”?

It seems like there is an expectation that experience would somehow change, that the shift is in that change in experience. But who is watching? Whose expectation is this?
Who is waiting?
Look very carefully:
“I’m not doing seeing, but there must be someone who is seeing—right?”
That’s the final scam.
Not “I am seeing,” but: “There must be someone seeing.”
That thought feels reasonable—but it’s just a reflex, a mental placeholder.
Trying to plug the gap where the “me” has vanished.
So ask:
Can there be seeing without anyone doing it?
Is the thought “someone is seeing” part of the seeing—or just more chatter appearing in the seeing?
There is an expectation that the absence of “me” will feel profound.
But it’s already happening—no fanfare, no explosion, just… this. Ordinary, anonymous, complete.
No effect to prove something is real. But there is no “realizer.” Just the realization:
No one is doing this. And no one needs to.
Right now—without memory, without expectation—
Is there someone here? Or only this?

Don’t answer. Don’t try to close the loop.
Just feel how thought is trying to solve something that doesn’t exist.
Let it fall apart.
Stay with what doesn’t need anything added.
Love

Hi Rali,

Was there a center (a reference point for here) before that disappeared now?

No, but there was an imaginary one. Tom the self, all things around it in its orbit. Judgement as to whether something is good or bad, desire or aversion, etc. But something that didnt exist cant dissapear.

Or was it always just this, all along, without a reference point?

Yes, though feel trapped between the two. Once fully seen, is there an understanding of what is, or is that more thought?

I recognize this is thought based, but i can see the false narrative put forth by thought, about "my story" and the false sense of a center. When experiencing sight, sound and feeling, and recognizing thought as thought, it seems like "so what, whats the big deal?" Is this a sign that thought is still framing things and experience must be understood?

Who cares who sees the couch?
Who needs to know who hears the fan?

Yes, this was meaningful to sit with and showed thought trying lead with the expectation of an answer.

Is there anything missing from this exact moment?
Is there any actual need for a seer, hearer, feeler—if this is already happening?

No, just existence existing

Where’s the gap that needs to be filled by a “truth of who”?

Perhaps its a gap of expectation.

Where is the center?
Is it a place? A sensation? A position mapped on amental picture of the head, an imaginary "behind the eyes"?
Or is it just another thought saying “this is where I am”?
Can you find it? Right now? LOOK! Or just the experience, centerless, already whole?

Looking showed where the false sense of center was thought to be. Im not sure now, not really sure what the question means.

Im struggling with the rest of the pointers and will sit with them more to avoid, as best as I can, thinking my way through them.

Thanks

Tom

Hi Tom

Yes, though feel trapped between the two. Once fully seen, is there an understanding of what is, or is that more thought?

I recognize this is thought based, but i can see the false narrative put forth by thought, about "my story" and the false sense of a center. When experiencing sight, sound and feeling, and recognizing thought as thought …

Right now—look directly.
Not at what’s happening—but at the one who knows it’s happening. Who can be trapped?
Where is the experiencer – the one that recognises, experiences seeing…? What shape? What colour? What sound?
Can you find what is supposedly seeing? Or is there only seeing and a description/thought/auto predictive language sequence?
Can you find what is supposedly aware? Or just sound, sensation, colour?
Can you find the one who is centerless? Or is that claim the final illusion?
Right now—without remembering anything—without relying on yesterday’s insight:
Who sees the fan?
LOOK.
Not to answer. Look until there's no one to ask the question.
And if something still wants to know what’s left—
That’s him. That’s the experiencer. The next thought. The subject in a sentence about something doing something on something. And it’s time to burn him.
Which picture represents what is really happening – subject, object, action; OR just action (flow)

No, just existence existing

Yes. Just this.
Not “just this” as a conclusion, a teaching, or an affirmation. Not “just this” as a new spiritual resting place. But literally, the immediacy of everything already happening—without any need for something to make sense of it. Is it even existence? Compared to what – non-existence? This is all a story about living and dying. What lives and what dies? How is it known that there is non-existence without the story? Have you ever experienced non-existence?

Once fully seen, is there an understanding of what is, or is that more thought?

Tom—what would be the point of understanding? Look at the absurdity of the question. Experience is already happening. There is no gap to bridge. No one behind a curtain needing to get it. Just the couch, the hum of the fan, the tap-tap of keys. Already whole.
What could an “understanding” add?
Nothing.
So let go of that. Burn the need to know. Burn even the need to say “there is no center.” If no center can be found, it’s not because you concluded it. It’s because there never was one. There’s no need to remember that. It is a fact that could be confirmed in any moment.

So what, what’s the big deal?

Exactly. That’s the brain short-circuiting when the seeker dies. That’s the final scam of the mind trying to re-frame it into a lesson.
"If it’s not profound, if it’s not a revelation, then what’s the point?" The seeker's biggest fear, that nothing major will change for his benefit. That voice is the self. That expectation is the experiencer. It’s not describing the problem—it is the problem. Because what's left if the “profound” never comes?
This.
Not a new version of this. Not a deeper, more vivid, more blissful this.
Just this. The fridge hum. The buzz in the foot. The ache in the shoulder. The flicker of a screen.
And no one here to benefit from it.
That’s freedom.
So the answer is simple:
The point is that there is no one to ask the question.
No one has ever been behind the eyes.
No one has ever done the seeing.
No one has ever had a life.
And no one is here now.
Let that silence the loop. Let it burn every last reason for seeking.
Nothing changes—because nothing needed to change. And that’s the death the seeker runs from:
The death of “what’s the point.”
And what remains?
This. Unfolding. Effortless. Undivided. Already gone. Nothing to say about it.
Let that silence consume you.
Love
Rali

Hi Rali,

Thanks for these pointers I am enjoying sitting with them. I realized how thick headed i have been expecting understanding to lead the way. Lol!

Im going to keep sitting with these and will respond more tomorrow.

Love,

Tom

Hi Rali,

The pointers from Monday were very helpful, specifically showing that there was expectation and a point of view looking for understanding. I've been sitting with them and am noticing more the sensation as a separate experience from one with thought labeling and describing. Much more direct and much more an experience of "just this."

Who can be trapped?

There is no one to trap

Where is the experiencer – the one that recognises, experiences seeing…? What shape? What colour? What sound?

In thought

Can you find what is supposedly seeing? Or is there only seeing and a description/thought/auto predictive language sequence?
Can you find what is supposedly aware? Or just sound, sensation, colour?
Can you find the one who is centerless? Or is that claim the final illusion?

All illusion. There is no center and no centerless. All just thought trying to hide as a "me"

Who sees the fan?

The fan is seen by no one

what would be the point of understanding?

Yes, this was very helpful to point out the paradox of expecting no one to understand.

What could an “understanding” add?

Nothing. Understanding is thought talking to itself

Because what's left if the “profound” never comes?

Just this

And what remains?

Sensation and thought.

Love,

Tom

Hi Tom
Perfect. Cut clean through.
All of it—center, seer, experiencer, understanding, even “centerless-ness”—was only ever language rearranging itself, chasing its own tail.

There is no center and no centerless.

Understanding is thought talking to itself.

The fan is seen by no one.

Yes. Yes. Yes.
What could be added to this?
Nothing.
What could be taken away?
Nothing.
There is no trap, because there’s no one to be trapped. There’s no freedom, because there was never anyone bound.
And even that sentence is just more thought chasing its shadow.
So what now?
Look.
Without trying to “get it.” Without trying to keep it. Without waiting for something else.
Can you find any part of this moment that’s not already whole?
Stay there.

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