Seeking a guide

[RBL]

1) Is there anything to be found in the senses other than 'The current experience'.
2) Can anything be found that is performing an activity called 'experiencing'?
3) Can an 'I', a body, a Rosie . . . anything at all be found that is witnessing the experience? Or is there just 'The current experience'?

1) There is only the current experience. Anything else found there is a belief about body and how it interprets.
2) Nothing can be found that is 'experiencing.' There is only the sensations which make up the current experience.
3) There is only the current experience. Anything else to be found is an illusion -a construction of thoughts which define the sensation. Without thought and preconceived beliefs, there is only the current experience.

Perhaps you can examine what is suggested by thought, and compare it with what you can find in the exercise.

When I consider thought it appears as a filter of the current experience. Sensation arises and that is experienced. Thought creates the edges of that experience -defines the body, attaches pre conceived associations with the sensations. Without thought sensation exists alone. When I look at thought closer there is awareness that thought does exist. I can look at sensation without thought and things become clear...but thought does exist. It feels like I could start picking apart what 'thought' means...but I am not certain that is what you are asking me to do. If I consider what i found in the exercise and relate that to thought ...it feels sensation comes first, then thought enters. I cannot see where thought comes from. It is just there. Thought attempts to define the sensations. It enters in relation to sensation, so sensation arises and then thought arises in relation to that sensation. There feels no central point from which thought emerges. Any attempt to claim or define thought would feel like an assumption. This feels difficult as on one hand there is feeling to define thought as just another sensation of the current experience.... and on the other hand there is still a want to break apart and question what thought is, as if it cannot be accepted to just exist so simply. At this moment thought feels like another part of the current experience like sight, sound and feeling.

Rosie x

[Xain]

Good stuff, Rosie.

At this moment thought feels like another part of the current experience like sight, sound and feeling.

Yes, you can examine it like that.

There is only the current experience. Anything else to be found is an illusion -a construction of thoughts which define the sensation. Without thought and preconceived beliefs, there is only the current experience.

Yes - You got it exactly,

You went into a little depth regarding 'thought' there because I hadn't really specified what I was asking properly.
I meant to compare what you find with what thought might suggest, but you've already got that.
Thoughts might suggest an 'I' is experiencing or a body is experiencing an outside world, but neither of these things are found when really examined.
(Note - The apparent 'distance' in the senses isn't something we directly examine here - At this stage, we simply examine if a separate 'experiencer' can be found).

Let's move to 'choice and control' now.

Here's another exercise for you - But it's the same style as all the rest you just did.

As you sit there, choose one of the hands - It doesn't matter which - Left or Right.
Then, when you feel you wish to, raise that chosen hand into the air.

Do this as many times as you wish to, and each time inquire:
1) What is controlling that hand? What is making it move into the air, making the arm muscles contract etc.
Can a controller be found in the experience right now? Can anything BE FOUND that is making that happen?
2) If a 'real' controller of the body cannot be found, is there any 'real' control over the body?
In other words, could all the movements of the body simply 'happen'?

Xain ♥

[RBL]

1) What is controlling that hand? What is making it move into the air, making the arm muscles contract etc.
Can a controller be found in the experience right now? Can anything BE FOUND that is making that happen?
2) If a 'real' controller of the body cannot be found, is there any 'real' control over the body?
In other words, could all the movements of the body simply 'happen'?

Hi Xain

1) As I watch my arm move up and down I become aware of the automatic action. With closed eyes I isolate this feeling of 'something happening' without a clear relationship to thought and control. There is nothing controlling the hand. I can witness the body seeming to control the hand, but on closer inspection, the body is just attached to the hand and any control is not visible or felt here.
2) It can be said there is no apparent control over the body. A thought pops in and then my arm does something else...but then there is no way of knowing or seeing the connection of thought and movement without making an assumption that it is happening.

There is still attachment to the idea that somewhere and somehow there must be connection of thought and movement otherwise there would be no coherent function. I am trying to feel into how real it feels that all movements of the body simply happen... I can say in this exercise that a 'real' controller cannot be found as that feels true... So for now that is how I'll leave it and stop thought from constructing more belief and assumption based statements.

Rosie X

[Xain]

Nice looking, Rosie.

There is still attachment to the idea that somewhere and somehow there must be connection of thought and movement otherwise there would be no coherent function.

Just consider what you are suggesting more deeply.
How much movement of the body happens without any thought?
Is thought required to make the heart beat?
How about driving a car? Is a separate thought needed for each pedal press and gear change?

How about this:
A) A thought about moving an arm is experienced.
B) The arm is seen to move.
C) Another thought is experienced that says that the first thought caused the movement.

Could that be the way it goes, maybe? Is there any REAL link between thoughts appearing and movement?

Perhaps have a look at the second part of the inquiry as well. Choice.

1) What is choosing that hand? What is selecting the hand?
Can a chooser be found in the experience right now? Can anything BE FOUND that is making a choice?
2) If a 'real' chooser cannot be found, is there any 'real' choice?
There might be an idea of one. There might be ideas about what is happening. Ideas about what is choosing. But these are only ideas, aren't they?

Could it all just 'be happening' entirely of itself?

Xain ♥

[RBL]

Thank you Xain. That input was really helpful. I had not considered the heart beating and everything that is functioning without any apparent choice and control. It seems so simple now. It is of course a massive assumption to suggest I am controlling the movement of my arm. I have thoughts of movement and my arm is moving but the connections between these activities cannot be witnessed or directly experienced.

1) What is choosing that hand? What is selecting the hand?
Can a chooser be found in the experience right now? Can anything BE FOUND that is making a choice?
2) If a 'real' chooser cannot be found, is there any 'real' choice?
There might be an idea of one. There might be ideas about what is happening. Ideas about what is choosing. But these are only ideas, aren't they?

A chooser could not be found in this exercise. Right now as I sit here I cannot experience a chooser. So that would lead to the suggestion that there is no choice being made beyond a thought appearing.

Rosie x

[Xain]

Damn, sorry Rosie - I didn't realise that I hadn't replied for a while.

So that would lead to the suggestion that there is no choice being made beyond a thought appearing.

Yes.
As you say . . . suggesting 'something' was in control or 'something' made a choice . . . is only from thought.
We don't FIND a controller or chooser. So 'I choose' or 'This body controls' is just an idea - A belief in something separate responsible for something.

Let's look at thoughts themselves now. Including 'Imagination' - Both can be examined in the same way.
'Thoughts' are sometimes referred to as 'the voice in the head'. The imagination referred to as mental images from memory or conjured pictures etc.

This exercise is the same as all the others and handled in the same way.

Think a thought or imagine an object. As you do this, inquire:

1) Can anything be found that is witnessing / experiencing the thought or imagined image?
2) Can anything be found that is causing a process of 'thinking' or 'imagining' to happen?
3) Can anything be found that is creating the thoughts? Or 'in control' over the thoughts?
4) Can anything be found that would make thoughts stop (another idea about something in control)?

Is there a separate self, an 'I' involved in thinking AT ALL. Or could it be that (as you mentioned) the 'I' being suggested is only within the content of the thought itself!?

Xain ♥

[RBL]

Hi Xain
No worries for delay... Apologies I delayed also, time slipped away there.

Think a thought or imagine an object. As you do this, inquire:

1) Can anything be found that is witnessing / experiencing the thought or imagined image?
2) Can anything be found that is causing a process of 'thinking' or 'imagining' to happen?
3) Can anything be found that is creating the thoughts? Or 'in control' over the thoughts?
4) Can anything be found that would make thoughts stop (another idea about something in control)?

Is there a separate self, an 'I' involved in thinking AT ALL. Or could it be that (as you mentioned) the 'I' being suggested is only within the content of the thought itself!?

1) Nothing can be found to be witnessing. Only the imagined image can be found.
2) Thoughts are found to be triggering thoughts and images lead to images but no source can be found to be causing the process to happen.
3) The thoughts run on and on, and any sense of control feels more like a hopeful assumption than reality. I can find no controller to these thoughts and images.
4) Thoughts on top of thoughts make things appear to stop, or at least change rather than stop. There is no control.

Rosie x

[Xain]

Thoughts are found to be triggering thoughts and images lead to images

It may appear to be the case.
But could it be that any thought is only suggested to be triggered or caused by another thought . . . through the thought process itself?

Could it go like this:

1) A thought is experienced.
2) A second thought is experienced.
3) A third thought is experienced, the content of which suggests that the second thought was caused by the first thought.

Is anything in evidence other than thoughts appearing and disappearing - Images appearing and disappearing.
To suggest one caused the other . . . is that anything more than yet another thought appearing?

Thoughts on top of thoughts make things appear to stop, or at least change rather than stop.

Appear to perhaps, yes. But literally so?

A question in other words - Do thoughts themselves have any REAL control at all?
Do thoughts LITERALLY cause other things to happen.

Xain ♥

[RBL]

Hi Xain

Yes I see. Thank you. Of course.. there are just thoughts and nothing coherent can be felt or seen to connect them together. To connect the thoughts together would of course suggest their is a central point by which thoughts can be witnessed to connect...and that is an illusion. Thoughts do not have any control and they do not literally make things happen..or at least this can not be directly experienced therefore it appears to be false.

[Xain]

That was a great reply, and yes, I can see you understood what I was pointing to.
I always try to get you to examine anything considered separate that you may believe is responsible for something, no matter what it is - A separate self, a body, a brain, even a thought.

Before we continue, let's just go back and recap all that we've looked into so far.
This is your chance to point out any areas that don't seem clear.
Note: There will always be an 'I' in the content of thoughts that appear - Just like there will always be an 'I' in this conversation.
But we are looking for an inherent self. An 'I' that really exists.

We've looked at all the senses. Could anything be found that is responsible for the senses? An 'I'? The body?
There may still be a sense of distance in the senses (for example between what can be seen, and a location where seeing is assumed to be happening from).
That is something for further inquiry. It's not a problem right now.
I want to know that it is clear you cannot find an 'I', or indeed anything separate that is doing the seeing.

We looked at choice and control. Was there anything found that had choice or control? An 'I'? The body?
We looked at thoughts. Was there anything found witnessing the thoughts? Anything making them happen? Anything that had any control over them?

Xain ♥

[RBL]

Hi Xain

I did not find anything to be witnessing the senses, controlling the body or causing thoughts to happen. There were many occasions when I would make the connection from one thought to the next and thus allude to a controlling centre. But I see clearly how this is an assumption. It feels like an easy and comfortable assumption to make..that thoughts are connected. But on closer inspection there is just a thought appearing, and then another, and then another. And along side thought there is the current experience. There is no central 'I' that is in control. I can say that only because I cannot directly experience that central 'I'. There is only belief and assumption that a Rosie is in control. That belief can not be experienced when I look closer.

I feel comfortable with where we have got to so far. I do still find myself analysing thought and wanting to define what is causing each thought to arise. This does drop away when I come back to seeing just a thought, then another thought, etc. I am aware that the body is functioning and thoughts are coming and going and some sense of coherence comes out of that as Rosie still interacts with the world. But I also see there is no thing that can be defined as Rosie, that as i zoom in to what makes up Rosie, there is nothing that can be grasped that can be said to the controller.

I am going to be away for a few days till Monday where there will be no internet connection. I will come online again Monday evening.

Thank you Xain for taking the time to help me keep looking.
Rosie x

[Xain]

Thanks, Rosie.

So with what we have gone through, here are some more open questions to be answered from what you have realised.

Right now, is there a body or a separate self looking at a screen?

In normal speaking, we would say that 'I have guided you' . . . but is there a real 'you' that has been guided?

Will there be any choice in what will be written in reply to this message?
Was there a real choice in starting this guidance with me?

If a thought containing 'I' appears. does that 'I' point to anything?
What that thought witnessed by a separate self, an 'I'?
Could it have been stopped or chosen to be different?

Is there a separate self here at all? Was there ever?

Xain ♥

[RBL]

Hi Xain

Right now there is a body looking at the screen. But there is no I writing this message. Just thoughts passing through. There is no separate self and never has been. There is an assemblage of body and thought that makes up Rosie. But 'I' am not controlling this body and these thoughts.

Will there be any choice in what will be written in reply to this message?
Was there a real choice in starting this guidance with me?

Choice is still troubling me. I recognise that this body seems to function without choice and control. I recognise that 'I' am not in control; there is no central point of control. But there is saying this...and then on the other hand there is acknowledging this body functions. On an experiential level there is no apparent control.. but what is the reason why thoughts and movement align to cause me to write this message. By saying I cannot experience the connection between these things is saying these things all happen by chance. I fully acknowledge there is no central 'I'... so a sense of Rosie made up of experiences and memories... and on one hand cannot be directly experienced as thoughts cannot be connected and proven to show any cohesion... But what it does it mean that up till now a collection of thoughts have defined a Rosie and been reflected back by other bodies and thoughts. I feel all of these thoughts are fluid and there is not a solid construction of rosie and central point from which to determine anything... but functioning is happening and I am wondering how to put logic to this.

Rosie x

[Xain]

Right now there is a body looking at the screen.

Is the body doing the looking?
(There may be a sense of distance between objects being seen, and 'somewhere where seeing is apparently being performed from).
But is any reference to 'what is doing the seeing' anything other than thoughts appearing?

I recognise that this body seems to function without choice and control.

Sounds fair.

But what is the reason why thoughts and movement align to cause me to write this message

Is 'reason' anything more than another thought appearing?
Why does there have to be a reason?
Some snow falls on the ground - Does it need a reason to do so?
What's the difference between that and anything else?

By saying I cannot experience the connection between these things is saying these things all happen by chance.

There is still a separate self involved here though - A separate self, that is having things happen by chance for them, instead of being controlled by them.
Could 'well it happened by chance' be just another thought appearing in experience, trying to make sense of things?

So a sense of Rosie made up of experiences and memories

I understand.
Do any of the memories reference a 'real' Rosie?
Are the memories being experienced by a 'real' Rosie?
Was there ever a 'real' Rosie?

That up till now a collection of thoughts have defined a Rosie and been reflected back by other bodies and thoughts.

Other bodies having thoughts . . .
Does 'this body called Rosie' have thoughts?

Xain ♥

[RBL]

Hello

Is the body doing the looking?
(There may be a sense of distance between objects being seen, and 'somewhere where seeing is apparently being performed from).
But is any reference to 'what is doing the seeing' anything other than thoughts appearing?

Yes of course you are right the body the body is not doing the looking. I see that.

I feel what is troubling me is that on one hand there is no direct experience of thought correlating with thought and therefore no separate self can be found from the current experience. But are you saying that therefore choice can never happen. You say there is somewhere where seeing is apparently being performed from. Is this acknowledging that there is a separate self? I think what is troubling me is that on one hand I understand that there is only the current experience which includes thoughts that come and go with no coherent thread... But on the other I acknowledge that there is somewhere where seeing is apparently being performed from. I recognise this 'somewhere' is not a 'real' Rosie, but it is a place from which seeing and experience is being performed/processed.

There is still a separate self involved here though - A separate self, that is having things happen by chance for them, instead of being controlled by them.
Could 'well it happened by chance' be just another thought appearing in experience, trying to make sense of things?

Yes I get this. There is no control. But what do you mean by separate self? Is there only current experience or is there on some level acknowledgement that a body is processing experience?