Self be gone

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

Direct or Actual Experience is:

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (not emotion - emotion is sensation plus thoughts/labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content, what the thought is ABOUT)

This quote from your April 4th post is what I have referenced in the last two posts of mine - mainly the part about thoughts. So, explain the thought part as it pertains to DE and THIS being all that is.

Check it directly! When the voice appears, does it carry a tag “belongs to Glen”
Or does that tag come as a separate thought?

A separate thought that appears after the hearing of the voice.

If the “me” is only ever a thought about what is happening, then what exactly would “no longer associating it with Glen” even mean? Who would do that?

So, the proper wording would have been, "no appearing of the thought that the voice belongs to Glen?"

Glen

[poppyseed]

Hi Glen
Good!. Just one last subtle knot.

This quote from your April 4th post is what I have referenced in the last two posts of mine - mainly the part about thoughts. So, explain the thought part as it pertains to DE and THIS being all that is.

This confusion is valid. Let’s clean it up. When we say “there is just the thought”, it can sound like we’re denying that thoughts are about things. That’s not the point.
Take the simple thought “apple”. Clearly, that thought seems to refer to something. No problem. Now look at it in direct experience … What is actually present? Just the thought (word / image / knowing). Can you find an actual apple inside the thought? No.
So the distinction is -
The thought appears → real as an experience
What the thought claims to refer to → not found in that moment
Now apply this to “I am a body”. The thought appears. That’s real as a thought. But what it refers to - an “I”, a “body as self” - can those be found in the thought itself?
Or are they just implied?
So we are not saying “ignore the content”. We’re saying the content is not something additionally present—it’s just part of the thought’s claim We are saying that thought's content is an approximation, a pointer to what is present - like a finger pointing to the moon. The finger is never the moon. However, the thought's presence (with its content) is also happening right now, also DE. The illusion/delusion is mistaking the finger for the moon.
Another way to see it is:
Thought = appearance
Content = what the thought says it’s about
But that “about” is never directly found—only suggested
So check this directly! When the thought “this is my voice” appears, what is present?
The thought.
Is there also an owner/ a “me”/ a Glen, or just the thought making that claim?
That’s the key. Nothing mystical. Nothing hidden.
Thoughts appear… and what they claim is not found outside of them.
A thought appears and that’s undeniable. So it’s not that content is excluded. It’s seen through.

no appearing of the thought that the voice belongs to Glen?

Close, but look carefully. That still implies something needs to change - certain thoughts should stop appearing. You are expecting that the icon of a mailbox should stop appearing on your desktop, only “0’s”and ”1’s”. Why should that change??? That’s the old pattern sneaking back in.
Does it matter whether the thought “this belongs to Glen” appears or not?
Look. When it appears, does it create a Glen?
Or is it just another thought with that content?
So the shift is not “that thought should stop appearing”. The shift is seeing that even when it appears, it refers to nothing real
Like with the “voice”:
the “voice” appears → that’s DE (sound + thought)
the idea “this is Glen’s voice” → another thought
Neither creates a self.
A thought appears “this is me”. Is there anything in experience that confirms that?
Or is it just a thought, claiming something about/describing in a conditioned way what is already happening?
Nothing needs to stop. Nothing needs to change. Just see:
Does any thought ever point to a real “me”… or only to another idea?
Love
Rali

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

My looking isn't going well today, so remind me how you explain what other people call believing one thought and disbelieving another. On a possibly related note, why do some thoughts feel good and others bad?

Glen

[poppyseed]

Hi Glen
Great! This is exactly the kind of “off day” question that cuts deeper than the clean answers.
Don’t try to look better. Look honestly.

what other people call believing one thought and disbelieving another

Let’s strip it down. A thought appears “this is true”. Another thought appears “this is not true”. Now look! Is there someone evaluating them? Or is there just one thought, followed by another thought with a different tone/content
Take it slower. A thought says “I am a body”. Then another thought “that’s not true”. Where is the believer? Can you find an entity choosing between them? Or just thoughts appearing in sequence? (thoughts self-organising)
So what gets called “belief” is simply a thought appearing with a sense of certainty, not being immediately contradicted by another thought
That’s it. No believer needed.
Now your second question:

why do some thoughts feel good and others bad?

Look directly. A thought appears. At the same time, or right after a sensation appears (tightness, openness, etc.). That combination gets labeled “good” or “bad”. So look…
Is the thought itself good or bad? Or is there thought, sensation, and another thought labeling it?
Example:
Thought: “I failed”
Sensation: contraction in chest
Thought: “this feels bad”
Now compare:
Thought: “I succeeded”
Sensation: expansion
Thought: “this feels good”
Same structure.No one inside experiencing it. Just thoughts, sensations, labels.
When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red ‘experienced’, or is the colour green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?
Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?
Is 'green' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?
If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Let me know what is SEEN.

My looking isn’t going well today

Look at that. Is that a fact? Or just a thought with a certain feeling tone?
Nothing is actually going better or worse. There is just what is happening and thoughts commenting on it
Is there someone struggling with looking, or just thoughts saying “this isn’t going well” plus sensations
The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw
Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON. Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice. It seems to feel as though they can influence, somehow, what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

What did you find when doing this exercise? Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?
Just SEE:
Is there ever anything more than thoughts + sensations… with other thoughts calling it belief, good, bad, progress, or failure?
After seeing all of this please go back to your previous pointers (my previous reply)
Love
Rali

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

So what gets called “belief” is simply a thought appearing with a sense of certainty, not being immediately contradicted by another thought

Sense of certainty that can attach to an opposing thought as a result of looking at the original thought or a related thought?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’ , is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

The labels don't determine the original item's nature. Is pain aversion nonexistent in a master of DE?

Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

The soccer commentary was not necessary for the ball to get moved and inner narration is not needed for life to happen.

Is there ever anything more than thoughts + sensations… with other thoughts calling it belief, good, bad, progress, or failure?

Thoughts and sensations are what can be experienced.

Now apply this to “I am a body”. The thought appears. That’s real as a thought. But what it refers to - an “I”, a “body as self” - can those be found in the thought itself?
Or are they just implied?

No "body as self" in that thought.

A thought appears “this is me”. Is there anything in experience that confirms that?
Or is it just a thought, claiming something about/describing in a conditioned way what is already happening?

Only conditioning claiming something that can't be experienced.

Does any thought ever point to a real “me”… or only to another idea?

No thought points to a real me.

Glen

[poppyseed]

Hi Glen
Now comes the part where the thought “tries” to turn this into a position instead of letting it cut all the way through.

No thought points to a real me.

Good. Don’t move past that.

Sense of certainty that can attach to an opposing thought…?

Look for yourself! Don’t try to understand with logic!!!
A thought appears “this is true”. Later, another thought appears “no, this is true”. Both can carry the same feeling of certainty. So check:
Does “certainty” prove anything is real?
Or is it just a sensation and thought.

Is pain aversion nonexistent in a master of DE?

Careful! This is reaching for a future state again. Look at what’s here instead.
Pain appears. Aversion may appear as a sensation (tightening, pulling away) and thought “this shouldn’t be happening”. Is there someone doing the aversion? Or just that whole pattern appearing?
Nothing needs to disappear. No “master” needed. Just see:
Is there ever a self inside any of that?

inner narration is not needed for life to happen

Good. Life is happening. Thoughts may narrate “this is me living”, but check:
Is that narration required? Or does it come like sports commentary?

Only conditioning claiming something that can't be experienced.

Yes. Now go one step further:
Conditioning = repeated thoughts.
Is there anything behind conditioning, or just thoughts repeating, building familiarity, giving a sense of “this is real”?
Without referring to any thought, is there a self anywhere in any form?
Or only what is happening and sometimes a thought saying “this is me”?

You’ve already seen it. Now don’t dilute it into philosophy. Stay with what is undeniable.
Love
Rali

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

Does “certainty” prove anything is real?
Or is it just a sensation and thought.

Certainty does not prove anything is real.

Pain appears. Aversion may appear as a sensation (tightening, pulling away) and thought “this shouldn’t be happening”. Is there someone doing the aversion? Or just that whole pattern appearing?

No one needs to do the aversion for it to appear.

Life is happening. Thoughts may narrate “this is me living”, but check:
Is that narration required? Or does it come like sports commentary?

A lot like sports commentary.

Is there anything behind conditioning, or just thoughts repeating, building familiarity, giving a sense of “this is real”?

Just thoughts.

Without referring to any thought, is there a self anywhere in any form?

No.

Glen