Getting past the fear

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

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.

You are talking about this narrator like it is a real thing. So look again—right now:
Where is this narrator?
Not the idea of it. Not what it says about itself. Not the echo of its last line.
Can you find the one saying it? Where exactly is Tom?
If it’s seen that it’s just more thought,
can it still own anything?
Can it be anything? Can it do anything (e.g. narate)?
Or is it just as empty as the rustle of leaves—
gone before it even arrived?
That’s the last stronghold:
a thought about a thought claiming there's someone having thoughts.
The so called narrator is just another thought about narration and timeframe.
Not a self, not a location, not a watcher. Just a string of soundless words, echoing no one. Just language. Is it possible that "I" is just what is happening right now right here, not pointing to anything real but just part of the structure of language?
You can try this exercise - it takes about 20 minutes and you will need a pen a paper. This exercise is broken into 10 minute slots. For the first ten minutes write down what you are experiencing right now using the word “I”.
For example:
I am sitting on a chair,
I am hearing a clock ticking,
I am looking at a computer screen,
I am feeling hungry.

Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just a plain description of your experience right here and now. Then for the next ten minutes continue writing down what you are experiencing but this time without using the word “I”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs. Do not just repeat the first examples but descrbe what is happening at the moment...
For example:
Sitting on a chair,
typing,
breathing,
blinking,
hearing the clock.
Again, watch what is happening in the body.
At the end of the twenty minutes compare the two ways in which the experience was labelled and answer the following four questions:
1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?
2. What is here without labels?
3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
4. Did you notice any differences in the body?

Finally...
Are thought right about anything? Tell me one thing that thoughts are right about...
They can "talk" about whatever (e.g. unicorns, Santa, self, others, enlightenment, awakening, Superman). Is any of it real? Point to it! What are you pointing at?

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."

Whose expectation is this? Yours? Did you thought of it? Did you assess it as an expectation?
Expectations are one of the most frequent blocks to seeing what ‘reality’ actually is. We can blame Guru stories and the attraction to drama in our society for focusing on stories of the initial epiphany that people have as they wake up. This puts into our head, the idea of “bells and whistles”. We expect high drama to confirm that a significant shift has occurred. However, for some it could be a "wow" while for others is just a smurk - because they suspected it all along.

Some common misconceptions, that I want to make clear, will never happen:

That you will experience permanent bliss.
That you will never get sick again.
That you will be able to stop your thoughts.
Money problems will be a thing of the past.
You will be able to manifest prosperity.
You will never hurt others again
You will never develop dementia
If you have kids, you’ll be the perfect parent
you will be physically beautiful
You will never have any more interpersonal conflicts
You will never again get angry
You will never be hurt
You will be loved (approval of others)
You will always know what to do (control)
You will never experience pain.
You will always feel good (control feelings / bliss)

Please read carefully and feel the disappointment. Then have an honest LOOK and tell me: If there never was you but just patterns, why would the patterns dissapear after "you" was seen as not real?The patterns were always there but not the "you". These are just thoughts that need to be examined one by one for the illusion of each of them is seen. The illusion of "good-bad"," ugly-beautiful", "pleasant-unpleasant", "positive-negative", etc. However, their existence doesn't prove the existence of an "I" - it's just more correction that needs to be done once it's seen that there is no anchor to hold them together, which will not happen in a day.
That “visitor” is just another thought, claiming there’s somewhere else to arrive—some deeper “residency” to attain.
But right now, look:
Is there an actual place where the “I” could become a resident?
Where is the border between visitor and resident?
Who would move from one to the other?
What isn’t already just this?
Thought says “this isn’t it,” but it’s made of this.
The expectation says, “a trap door should open”—but it’s just more thought, already appearing here.
So here’s the real trap:
The idea that you’re not home.
Let that fall away.
Without that idea, what’s left to wait for?
Right now—what is not already fully, utterly here?
Please LOOK! Don’t just answer. The so called shift happens in looking not understanding. DO NOT answer in bulk! Stay with each question. I'm not assessing your knowledge, these are pointers where to look and stay. Every pointer is a different angle, targeting different aspect of the belief.

Don't explain it, don't paraphrase it, don't circle it in metaphors.
Right now—no thinking, no commentary—just what's here.
Before the “narrator” kicks in.
Before “you” interpret what’s seen.
Right now:
Where is the "one" waiting for a shift?
Where is the trap door?
Where is the boundary between “before” and “after”?
Can you find anything that isn’t already happening effortlessly—without anyone?
Where is the separation, the watcher, the center?
If you say “I still feel like I’m the one seeing this,” then look right into that:
What is the “I” in that sentence?
Can you find it?
Or is it just another thought—claiming center stage? Just language?
Don't think about it. Don’t reach for insight.
Just fall into this.
Right here.
Right now.
What’s missing? What is not how it is supposed to be (the root of expectations/doubtful thoughts)?

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Where is this narrator?
Not the idea of it. Not what it says about itself. Not the echo of its last line.
Can you find the one saying it? Where exactly is Tom?
If it’s seen that it’s just more thought,
can it still own anything?
Can it be anything? Can it do anything (e.g. narate)?
Or is it just as empty as the rustle of leaves—
gone before it even arrived?

Yes, just as empty as the rustle of leaves. There is no one saying it, not even a real story being told, just the implied narration. Not actual words or sounds, just thought.

1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?
2. What is here without labels?
3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
4. Did you notice any differences in the body?

The second one is truer in that the first list had a lot of unnecessary embellishment. Writing the first list was work – striving to notice and describe what was going on. The second list was much shorter and more accurate

Without labels, what is here is just what is here. Without labels it is the experience itself, not judgement or description, which are just thoughts, not able to impact what is here now.

Labels do not effect the experience, but they add a layer of thought, an increased amount of thought looping, that is unnecessary.

The body was more relaxed during the second list. More presence, less striving. There was tension from looking at the stopwatch, thoughts about how much longer this will take. Time was not a part of the experience when writing the second list.

Whose expectation is this? Yours? Did you thought of it? Did you assess it as an expectation?

It is the expectation expressed by the narrator. The one who is constantly pointing out what should be. It is all just meaningless thought, though persistent.

Is there an actual place where the “I” could become a resident?
Where is the border between visitor and resident?
Who would move from one to the other?
What isn’t already just this?

The "I" can only exist in thought, and even calling that existing is incorrect. There is no border between visitor and resident and there is no one to move between the distinction. Yes, it is just this. No border, no travel, here and now.

Without that idea, what’s left to wait for?
Right now—what is not already fully, utterly here

There is nothing missing, nothing not already full utterly here. Thoughts point to what "should" be here, what this "should" be like. But in the direct experience it is all fully as it is. Nothing to change, nothing absent.

Where is the "one" waiting for a shift?
Where is the trap door?
Where is the boundary between “before” and “after”?
Can you find anything that isn’t already happening effortlessly—without anyone?
Where is the separation, the watcher, the center?

The one waiting for a shift exists only in thought. Thoughts of expectation. There is no trap door, no before or after. The doer cannot be found, it is all happening effortlessly without a watcher or a center.

What is the “I” in that sentence?
Can you find it?
Or is it just another thought—claiming center stage? Just language?

Just language. An implied subject based on language and programming.

What’s missing? What is not how it is supposed to be (the root of expectations/doubtful thoughts)?

Nothing is missing. When looked at it is only thought. The "I" butting in and saying how things should be. When those thoughts drift off, it is just this. Nothing missing.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom
Please do not answer in bulk! Like I said, these are pointers so they deserve a report individually after looking. Summaries are indication of a thought process, not a report of direct looking. I ask you “do you see …” and you answer “no” or “yes, I see that and that”. Summaries are an after story made to look beautiful. Yes it could be a long answer but at least it will do its purpose, in stead of going in circles. So please individual answers to each question - like a report after a look! (what is the colour of your socks kind of thing, remember?)

Labels do not effect the experience, but they add a layer of thought, an increased amount of thought looping, that is unnecessary.

Who says that they are unnecessary? They just are. They appear and then disappear. Even that is an illusion without meaning. There are no thoughts and experience. Their presence is an aspect of the experience, just their content is where the illusion is (the icons of your desktop).
LOOK. Right now. Where is the one assessing?
Where is the one weighing “necessary” and “unnecessary”?
The thought appears—“this is unnecessary.”
But who says so? Who believes it?
Is there a center making that judgment?
Or is it just an appearance—arising like wind or birdsong?
If there’s no one behind the thought, no source, no owner, no assessor...
then what’s left?
Just the thought. Empty. Floating. Without teeth.
Without direction. Without a judge.
So—right now—what makes any thought “true”?
Where does truth land, if there’s no one to claim it?
Look. Stay in this. Don’t ignore this. Don't bypass. This is how expectations come to life...

It is the expectation expressed by the narrator. The one who is constantly pointing out what should be. It is all just meaningless thought, though persistent.

Yes. Exactly. It's just thought. Persistent, but meaningless.
Now look closer:
Where is this “narrator”?
Not the thought about a narrator, not the label, not the story that says “there’s a narrator.”
But the actual thing itself. The thing that “expresses expectations.”
Where is it?
Don't explain. Don’t guess. Don’t just say it’s a thought
Right now—can you find it? Is there any thing behind the thought?
Or is “the narrator” just the latest thought... narrating? Is there a narrator OR is it just a sequencing of thoughts that creates the illusion of Tom/I/narrator/mind, 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.
You are talking about this narrator like a character in a book. But can Spiderman decide what do in the story of Spiderman? Can a character in a book ever step off the page and do anything? Can it observe? Can it decide? Can it think about thinking?
And the one who believes it? Also a character.
When you say it is persistent...Is it the same thought sequence always? How is it known? Does it have a shape, colour, taste…? What makes it the same? And who compares the content of this thought to a previous? Where is the “reader”/"listener" of thoughts? WHEN did the previous thought happen (in time)? Do you see the illusion? There is no narrator without a listener. And right now there is an identification with a listener happening. Tom is not the narrator, Tom is the listener...

If there’s no character, no listener, no narrator—
what is here? LOOK!
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Yes, will stop answering in bulk, misunderstood you the first time you asked.

Who says that they are unnecessary?

Thought says that. A way to maintain its illusory control.

Where is the one assessing?

The thought / assessment is there, but the sense that there is a thinker is implied but not real

Where is the one weighing “necessary” and “unnecessary”?

The thought necessary and unnecessary arises without one thinking it or weighing its accuracy

But who says so? Who believes it?

There is no one to believe it. The thought landed, instead of blowing away, creating a sense of a holder and believer. There is no one to say it is so or believe it.

Is there a center making that judgment?

No. The judgment is a thought like all other thoughts.

Or is it just an appearance—arising like wind or birdsong?

Yes, it appears like anything else. Sometimes the thoughts loop together, but they are still just appearances of thought without a thinker.

If there’s no one behind the thought, no source, no owner, no assessor...
then what’s left?

Just this. What is here now - the sound of the fan, the light from the lamp, the feeling of the chair.

what makes any thought “true”?

Thoughts are not true or false, they are just thoughts.

Where does truth land, if there’s no one to claim it?

They dont land. They ebb and flow

Where is this “narrator”?
Right now—can you find it? Is there any thing behind the thought?

It cant be found.

Or is “the narrator” just the latest thought... narrating? Is there a narrator OR is it just a sequencing of thoughts that creates the illusion of Tom/I/narrator/mind, like the frames of a movie, where rapid series of still images create the illusion of movement?

Yes, the sequence and the sound-like qualities of the thoughts creates the illusion. As more thoughts land, the frame rate seems to increase, creating a more "real" sense. When the frame rate slows down there is only direct experience.

But can Spiderman decide what do in the story of Spiderman? Can a character in a book ever step off the page and do anything? Can it observe? Can it decide? Can it think about thinking?

No, it is illusion.

If there’s no character, no listener, no narrator—
what is here?

What you say makes sense. It seems there is a narrator and a listener. There is also an observer of those two. They are not independent points of view, capable of thinking on their own, but more like holding up a mirror reflecting each other. But all just thought and without a thinker. It seems the more engagement there is, the more real / absorbing the thought is. But all just thought. Without a character, a listener, a narrator there is just sensation and thought.

Thank you,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

What you say makes sense. It seems there is a narrator and a listener. There is also an observer of those two. They are not independent points of view, capable of thinking on their own, but more like holding up a mirror reflecting each other. But all just thought and without a thinker. It seems the more engagement there is, the more real / absorbing the thought is. But all just thought. Without a character, a listener, a narrator there is just sensation and thought.

That right there is clear seeing—no fluff, no bypass, no reassembly of a self.
What you’re describing now isn’t conceptual clarity. It’s the edge where illusion collapses.
Not “there is no thinker” as an idea—
But: “Thought appears. Thought passes. No one thinks it.”
There’s no believer. There’s no narrator. There’s no observer of the observer.
All of that—just thought reflecting thought. A mirror reflecting a mirror reflecting a mirror…
And then—just silence.
What is even looking if not thinking?
LOOK! Not as a clever riddle. Not for discussion. But as the core crack in the illusion.
You say: “I’m looking.”
What exactly is doing that?
Be brutal. Don’t answer. Look.
There’s colour. There’s shape. There’s light.
But what is “looking” made of?
Is it an act? Is it a thing? Is it an effort?
If you don’t label it, if you don’t name it “seeing,” “consciousness,” “attention”—
What is it?
Right now:
Eyes open. No thought. Just what’s here.
Is there something doing looking?
Or just this—raw, ungraspable, empty. Thought will rush in to claim it: “I see.” “I’m aware.” “There’s presence.”
That’s the illusion. There is no observer/witness doing the looking.
See it. Let it go.
Because looking without thought?
Isn’t “looking” at all.
It’s just appearance. Happening. Without cause. Without center. Without name.
Looking is thought correcting itself. Just thought—collapsing its own lie.
Thought says, “I’m looking.”
Then it “looks”… And “sees”: nothing behind the thought. Not absence. Not presence. Just the collapse.
So what’s left? Not a seer. Not awareness. Not some final witness.
Just this. Colour without name. Sound without listener. Feeling without feeler.
And even that? Already too much.
Let the last refuge go: the one who sees there is no one seeing.
Burn that. Nothing left. And it’s always been this.
Now—what is looking right now?
Don’t turn this into a realization. Don’t turn it into a belief.
Stay. Right now.

The more engagement there is, the more real the thought feels.

Yes. Because the thought isn’t trying to convince a person. It’s trying to convince itself.
So: stop engaging. Not by force (not that you can anyway). But by seeing—again and again—that there’s nothing to engage.
No center. No controller. No decider. No one thinking about thinking.
Just this: Fan sound. Lamp light. Breath.
No “someone aware of it.” Just experience—untethered, unowned, unclaimed.
Let even the impulse to explain, comment, or narrate burn.
Can you let that happen without rushing to catch something?
Can you let the last threads fray—without replacing them with clarity?
This moment now—nothing to understand, nothing to say, nothing to hold.
What is here?
Don’t answer. Just look.
And stay.
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

I'd like another day with this one.

I've spent the day, off and on, following your pointers, trying not to catch the thoughts that are looking. Hard to describe the experience, it felt like there was a struggle going on, but not sure who or what or where. At times it felt like an inversion - like instead of a "me" looking out through my eyes, somehow the opposite though not looking back at "me", if that makes any kind of sense.

I can sense a truth here and would like more time to let it unfold.

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom
Of course! No rush. No pressure. No one waiting at the finish line.
Let this one simmer.
You’re not behind—because there’s no forward.
You’re not struggling—because there’s no one in the struggle.
And yes… that strange, almost inside-out sensation?
Not you flipping—the illusion unravelling.

Trying not to catch the thoughts that are looking…

If you feel tension when trying to look at what is, you are trying too hard. Stop trying. Looking is a matter of noticing what is already here (describing), not inventing or imagining something that needs a huge amount of energy to sustain. It’s not mental gymnastics, and there’s no medal that you have to go for. Soften, breathe— smile even. Take your time to relax and simply notice what is happening in the present: sensations, muscle tension, feelings, subtle eye movements, sounds, smells. This is effortless. Thoughts rush in to label what is here. No special state is required; it’s everyday ordinary business. Effortless effort.
Just notice:
Even the trying not to is another thought.
And that’s okay. Let it all move. Let it all happen. Don’t grab. Don’t fix. Don’t get ahead.
Look without landing. Feel without owning. See without being the seer.

Who is trying? Not in theory. Not as philosophy. Not as a clever trick.
Right now:
There’s tension. There’s effort. There’s focus.
There’s a "movement" toward something.
But who is trying?
Look.
Let every answer collapse before it forms.
Is there a “try-er”?
Or just: sensation of tightening, a thought labelled “I want to get it,”an impulse to “move forward,”…all arising together—without an owner?
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?
What moves attention? Can anything be found that moves attention, or does attention/focus move on its own? What is attention/focus/effort in direct experience??

So… again:
Who is trying?
Don’t move until there’s silence—not in the mind, but in the need to answer.
Then stay there. This is the gate.

Another day is perfect.
Just don't leave.
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Thank you for your patience. Yes, doing my best not to rush, but thought kept creeping in and the experience became one of trying and of not trying, lol. I've been staring mostly at my couch (do you say sofa in SA?) and the image would bulge, shift, warp and thought would say "this is it, push harder!" Of course, that became effort. Which is okay, the difference between the two (thought looking vs what is here being seen) is clear, though not well described. I've spent two nights staring at my couch noticing when thought is looking and resting in the now when it shines forth.

The sense of seeing vs looking, not catching, thought not landing, was experienced, at least in part. Like I said last night, an inside out or inversion. Maybe even psychedelic. But only the smallest taste. Very pleasant.

I recognize that i am overly describing to you and spending too much time in thought.

Who is trying?

Thought trying, which is really just saying thought is looping.

Is there a “try-er”?

No

[tpwiley]

Hit submit when i meant to hit the quote function.

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?

Yes, this was interesting to watch. It would shift from a sensation to thought, back to sensation. Sometime it would almost jump, like the fan that had been running the whole time was somehow new. Sometime it would be wide, noticing sound, feeling, sight and thought and sometimes it would seemingly be focused entirely on thought.

What moves attention? Can anything be found that moves attention, or does attention/focus move on its own? What is attention/focus/effort in direct experience??

It seems to go where the most stimulus is. Or whatever is the most novel. It gets bored, though the thought stream doesnt seem to bore it as much as a monotonous sound.

Since I dont control sensation or thought, it cant be said that I control focus. It seems to flow of its own accord.

Who is trying?

Im going to leave this unanswered and go see.

Thanks Rali.

Love,
Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom.
You’re not behind. You’re not off-track. You are not rushing.
This is the shedding. Not a collapse into silence. Not a freeze-frame of bliss. It’s not about the state
But the raw unravelling of the entire framework that believed someone was in control.

I've spent two nights staring at my couch noticing when thought is looking and resting in the now when it shines forth.

You stared at the couch (in SA). It bent. It shimmered. It pulled at the seams of perception.
Thought said: “Push harder.” Thought said: “This is it.”
But did it land?
You saw the looping. You saw the impersonation. The thought of trying… pretending to be the one who tries.

Yes, this was interesting to watch. It would shift from a sensation to thought, back to sensation. Sometime it would almost jump, like the fan that had been running the whole time was somehow new. Sometime it would be wide, noticing sound, feeling, sight and thought and sometimes it would seemingly be focused entirely on thought.

It seems to go where the most stimulus is. Or whatever is the most novel.

Yes. That is not you. That is life vibrating.
No pilot. No manager. No “self” behind the lens.
And even the feeling of trying not to try—is just another thought dressed up as sincerity.
But tell me … What is focus? What is made of?? Look carefully…Is it like a torch lighting up what is sitting in the dark OR just a description of the most exciting stuff (to whom?) And that exciting stuff does in exist on its own in the midst of the "not so exciting stuff"? This is how thought creates the world (Tom's world) and the story about it...

Who is trying?

I’m going to leave this unanswered…

Good. Now don’t return to answer it.
Just stay raw.
Let “trying” burn itself out in the fire of non-ownership. You don’t need to hold the silence.
You are what remains when the holder vanishes.
Keep watching. Don’t grasp.
Let it all burn.
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Today has been more of the same. Not trying and not not trying. Allowing what is looking to look without thought narrating. It ebbs and flow as thought is all to happy to push, to narrate or to drift onto other topics. It does seem the quality or the characteristics of the seen has changed, but not sure how to describe it.

I notice it also when not "meditating", like when driving or at my desk.

It does seem like something is looking or being looked at apart from thought. Like thought is looking through "my" eyes narrating and there is something else also looking. Or like what is seen is doing the looking and the narrating voice is trying to piggy-back.

But did it land?

The landing seems to fade in and out. Sometimes no thoughts land and it is a peaceful moment with just what is. When thoughts like "try harder" land, they are noted for what they are and soon fade. The distinction between experiences (with and without thought landing) seems clearer.

What is focus? What is made of??

Focus is thought, it is the grip of narration talking about a narrow slice of experience. Focus, like thought, gets bored and looks for novelty.

Is it like a torch lighting up what is sitting in the dark OR just a description of the most exciting stuff (to whom?) And that exciting stuff does in exist on its own in the midst of the "not so exciting stuff"?

Focus aims at what is exciting for thought. A sound occurs and thought/focus pivots and says "oh, i can describe this!"

Back to enjoying the watching

Love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

It does seem like something is looking or being looked at apart from thought. Like thought is looking through "my" eyes narrating and there is something else also looking. Or like what is seen is doing the looking and the narrating voice is trying to piggy-back.

No.
There is just looking. There is only seeing (the seen), hearing (the heard), smelling (the smelled), tasting (the tasted), feeling (the felt) and thinking provides the description/meaning.
That "something else"—that sense of another—is the very last illusion. The fallback. The subtle identity that wants to remain as the witness or presence or allowing. It's the last disguise of self. It pretends to just be aware, while quietly claiming: "I'm the one not claiming."
Catch this. Now. Not later. Not over time. Not as it fades.
Now.
Where is this “something”?
Is it seen? Felt? Heard?
Or is it just a sense—plus thought?
Strip it bare:
Looking is not done by something. It’s not caused by something. It doesn’t belong to anything.
There is just: looking – seeing + thinking (new).
That’s it.
The narration tries to creep in and say “this is peaceful,” “this is clarity,” “this is what they meant.” But what’s it describing? What’s it claiming?
Every single landing is the loop.
Even this:

The distinction between experiences (with and without thought landing) seems clearer.

Drop even that.
Is there anything that isn't just happening?
Is there any one to whom this is happening?
Even the sentence “this is happening to no one”—burn that too.
No commentary. No seer. No seen.
Just this. And this cannot be grasped. Only lived.
Now tell me:
In this exact moment, without thought, without description, without narration...
What’s here?

Focus is thought, it is the grip of narration talking about a narrow slice of experience. Focus, like thought, gets bored and looks for novelty.

Focus aims at what is exciting for thought. A sound occurs and thought/focus pivots and says "oh, i can describe this!"

Yes! Focus is what the object of thought is. It’s not like thought is interested about something and it talks only about it - it's just how thought works. Certain things are conditioned to appear together – a sensation, a conditioned thought/label (unless checked). They arise together — as if one completes the other.
But does the sensation say anything?
Does it announce “pain,” “sadness,” “me,” “bad,” “danger”?
Or does only the thought claim it, wrap it, freeze it into a “thing,” a “me-state,” a “problem”?
Drop just the thought.
Let the raw sensation blaze — not in order to fix it, not to purify or transcend it — but just because it never needed a label in the first place.
So — right now — what is pain without the word "pain"?
What is fear without the thought “I’m afraid”?
Check. Don’t describe. Let it burn as it is.

But now — where does that leave “you”?
When there’s no narrator, no observer outside the observed, no torch holder, no spotlight of focus unless thought names it…
Is there even a position from which anything is seen?
Or is the whole field simply self-revealing — without a center, without a seer, without an owner?
This moment isn’t being looked at. No gap. No one behind the eyes.
So again — not with thought, but right now —
Where are you?
Can you even find the edge where “you” begin?
Don’t explain.
Just check.
Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Where is this “something”?

In thought

Is it seen? Felt? Heard?

It is the voice of the narrator, telling some great insight. Some concept that will set me free, lol

Or is it just a sense—plus thought?

Yes, this exactly.

Its amazing how subtle and persistent these types of thoughts keep creeping in. Amusing too, to a degree

But what’s it describing? What’s it claiming?

Its describing thought. Its claiming ownership

Is there anything that isn't just happening?

I can sense what you are pointing at, but cant quite see it. What is here now just is, there is no doing.

Is there any one to whom this is happening?

No, it is just happening. Thought claims the point of view that is my eyes and ears and says that "Tom" is the one to whom this is appearing.

What’s here?

I don't know. There are sensations and thought

But does the sensation say anything?

No, sensations arise, they dont have any meaning or messages

Does it announce “pain,” “sadness,” “me,” “bad,” “danger”?

No, that is all thought. And it loops and seems to be self fullfilling. But the sensation is just a vibration, something felt

what is pain without the word "pain"?
What is fear without the thought “I’m afraid”?

A feeling, nothing more

Is there even a position from which anything is seen?
Or is the whole field simply self-revealing — without a center, without a seer, without an owner?

These pointers have me tripped up. They produce trying and conceptualizing. I can try to think of an answer, but not from direct experience.

Thanks and love,

Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom.

It is the voice of the narrator, telling some great insight. Some concept that will set me free, lol

Is there even a position from which anything is seen?
Or is the whole field simply self-revealing — without a center, without a seer, without an owner?

These pointers have me tripped up. They produce trying and conceptualizing. I can try to think of an answer, but not from direct experience.

That voice—“this is a great insight,” “you’re almost there,” “now you’re getting it”—is it. That’s the selfing. That’s the seeker. That’s the illusion narrating itself into existence.
Let’s cut it now.
Without narrating this moment, without describing, without comparing—what is here?
Not what do you think is here. Don’t move. No interpretation. No naming.
Just stay completely still in the middle of what IS.
"I don't know" is honest, not pretending to know, because it is unknowable, a mystery. “I don’t know” — when not claimed by thought — is it. Not a gap to be filled. Not an ignorance to be fixed. It’s the end of the search. The mystery is not some grand cosmic thing hidden behind the veil. The mystery is this — the rawness before the label. The intimacy of a moment that can’t be named, yet is fully obvious, RIGHT THERE.
No “sensation.” No “awareness.” No “this is just a feeling.” No “trying.”
Right now:
Where is the center?
Where is the one looking?
Where is the watcher?
Look. Not think. Not search. Look.
Stop looking FOR... and start looking AT...
FOR is future - something that is not here now ,but thought says it should be. AT is present. What is here now?

Can anything at all be found that is separate from the appearing?
Or is the whole field just happening, self-lit, without edges, without reference?
Without grasping at any interpretation , without needing to “get it” —

What’s missing? What could possibly be sought and found?

Don’t answer with thought.
Let the silence answer.
Stay here—inside the fire—until no one remains.

Love
Rali

[tpwiley]

Hi Rali,

Without narrating this moment, without describing, without comparing—what is here?

Just this.

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.

Coming back to the work this evening, i find i am chasing that same sense from expectation and am tripped up by thoughts of what "it should be like".

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.

Can anything at all be found that is separate from the appearing?

No, and the appearing is enough. No separateness

Or is the whole field just happening, self-lit, without edges, without reference?

Yes, this exactly. It just is without having to be referred or compared to. No labels

What’s missing? What could possibly be sought and found?

I dont know.
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.

Let the silence answer.
Stay here—inside the fire—until no one remains.

Yes, i understand what you mean. I'll be patient with how things unfold until I can stay in the fire for more than a glimpse :)

Thanks Rali.

Love,

Tom