Glimpsed, not entered

[Lln]

If you could close your eyes whilst seated and bring your attention to the point of contact between you and the seat. In a relaxed manner, let the attention rest on exactly the place where the body and the seat meet.

What do you find there?

The sensation and thoughts about the sensation.

Do you find a body and a chair in the experience? Or do you only find the sensation of feeling?

Is there a sens-er and a sens-ed, or is there only one thing - sensing?

Thoughts say there is a body in a chair, and contact between the body and the chair happens somewhere below.

Disregarding the thougets, there's only sensing, located (for lack of a better term) here.

[b0dhi]

Hey L

Thoughts say there is a body in a chair, and contact between the body and the chair happens somewhere below.

Disregarding the thougets, there's only sensing, located (for lack of a better term) here.

Important distinction - there is the sensation, and then there is the thinking about the sensation. Some questions for you:

1. In the sensing, is there a "you" and an "other" being sensed, or is there only sensing?
2. Do the thoughts about the sensing create the sens-ed and the sens-er?
3. If (2.) is true, then do the thoughts about the sensing occur before, during or after the sensation occurs?
4. Does what you observe about the sense of touch above apply across the other senses - hearing, smelling, tasting and seeing?
5. Can "you" be found through the direct experience of any of the senses?

[Lln]

1. In the sensing, is there a "you" and an "other" being sensed, or is there only sensing?
2. Do the thoughts about the sensing create the sens-ed and the sens-er?
3. If (2.) is true, then do the thoughts about the sensing occur before, during or after the sensation occurs?
4. Does what you observe about the sense of touch above apply across the other senses - hearing, smelling, tasting and seeing?
5. Can "you" be found through the direct experience of any of the senses?

1. There is only sensing, especially in that the border between chair and body seems to actually be completely arbitrary and nonexistent.

2. Yes.

3. There are thoughts: I am going to sense; I am sensing; I have sensed. Although time seems to be a construct of thought, so it would be more accurate to say sometimes sensing occurs with thoughts about sensing, sometimes without. Sometimes thoughts about sensing occur when that particular sensing isn't.

4. Totally.

5. No, it's more like circling around a hole looking for a building that should be there.

[b0dhi]

Hey L

Great going!!

5. Can "you" be found through the direct experience of any of the senses?

5. No, it's more like circling around a hole looking for a building that should be there

.

This made me smile.... a lot :)

Since you are quite clear that the senses are not able to clearly reveal a you, let's turn our attention to the other mode of knowing about reality, which is thoughts and thinking.

You have also already taken a cursory look here, so let's deepen it.

Firstly you can directly experience a thought. To clarify I mean you know what a thought is without doubt. Just as you know what a sound is.

Thoughts in themselves are really just pointers or labels. They label objects, actions, concepts, relationships...whatever.

When a thought refers to a cat, or a building, or a tree - these are objects that have physical reality.
Then thoughts refer to things that exist only in concept, such as a belief, a legal framework or an ideology.

When your thoughts refer to "I", or "L" or "me", you have already seen that this is just an assumption, a concept - there is no solidity or reality to this self.

Please let me know if you are in agreement so far.

Your thoughts about yourself that build this narrative, make a very heavy assumption that there is a real you that the narrative is built around. It is only when you question the assumption that you see that there is just a hole...no building.

So since a tangible you cannot be found, who is thinking these thoughts? Are they your thoughts?

The thoughts are weaving a story about an imaginary you, a fictional narrative indeed. Are you the one creating this story?

[Lln]

Please let me know if you are in agreement so far.

Definitely!

So since a tangible you cannot be found, who is thinking these thoughts? Are they your thoughts?

The thoughts are weaving a story about an imaginary you, a fictional narrative indeed. Are you the one creating this story?[/quothe]

No, they aren't mine, I'm not creating the story. Looking closely, thoughts seem like leaves blowing on the wind: separate random snippets that other thoughts label as a cohesive flow.

This I can verify through experience.

But who's looking? Who is directing the inquiry? If there is no self, does realizing that fact make this process less like learning the periodic table and more like waking up, ie. something completely out of personal, concious control?

Although, I guess if there is no separate self in reality, nothing is in control.

Just spinning my wheels. This is as far along as I've been above to get through self inquiry before.

[b0dhi]

Just spinning my wheels. This is as far along as I've been above to get through self inquiry before.

Yes, it's evident that you have traversed here before. We got to this point quite quickly. Good work :)

But who's looking? Who is directing the inquiry? If there is no self, does realizing that fact make this process less like learning the periodic table and more like waking up, ie. something completely out of personal, concious control?

Although, I guess if there is no separate self in reality, nothing is in control.

Let's keep deepening this inquiry. Time for some heavy lifting L :)

In regards to your "self" - can a self that is created through the process of thinking exert any direct control over the thoughts that are creating it? Can you choose to only have happy thoughts for a whole day? Or to stop thinking for 10 minutes?

Since you cannot find this "self" in direct experience through the senses, what could be in control of the senses? Can you choose to stop hearing and feeling and tasting? Can you choose to vary the intensity of a smell?

As you look out into a Universe that appears to have "order", it is easy to assume that there is something in control and something in charge. After all, flowers bloom, clouds form, day and night intertwine...and so on. Can this "controller" be found? What can be found?

When you walk or drive or run, is there a "you" in control? Can a controller be found? Is the conceptual "you" in charge of these activities?

Though all this inquiry of the questions above - do things not still unfold as they are unfolding? Is there a need for a controller? Is there a need for the "certainty" that there is or is not a controller?

I look forward to hearing from you

Warm regards

[Lln]

Hi Bodhi!

Let's do this :)

In regards to your "self" - can a self that is created through the process of thinking exert any direct control over the thoughts that are creating it? Can you choose to only have happy thoughts for a whole day? Or to stop thinking for 10 minutes?

Not at all.

Since you cannot find this "self" in direct experience through the senses, what could be in control of the senses?

As far as I can tell, nothing. They are as uncontrollable as the tides.

Can you choose to stop hearing and feeling and tasting? Can you choose to vary the intensity of a smell?

No

As you look out into a Universe that appears to have "order", it is easy to assume that there is something in control and something in charge. After all, flowers bloom, clouds form, day and night intertwine...and so on. Can this "controller" be found? What can be found?

There is no controller, just this, the experience of an apparently ordered world.

When you walk or drive or run, is there a "you" in control? Can a controller be found? Is the conceptual "you" in charge of these activities?

Unfortunately for my sense of ego, not at all. :)

Though all this inquiry of the questions above - do things not still unfold as they are unfolding? Is there a need for a controller? Is there a need for the "certainty" that there is or is not a controller?

Things unfold just as they always have, without any need for someone or something to be in charge, so the need for a certainty about it is only another random thought.

To take this a step further, not only is there no need for a controller, there's no need for a passive observer at the receiving end of experience. As we've been through, the impression of sensed, sensing, sensor is fictitious, so an ultimate observer is untrue.

Cheers,

L.

[b0dhi]

Hey L!

Absolutely wonderful! Your understanding is so clear :)

Things unfold just as they always have, without any need for someone or something to be in charge, so the need for a certainty about it is only another random thought.

And at that another thought not created by you .

To take this a step further, not only is there no need for a controller, there's no need for a passive observer at the receiving end of experience. As we've been through, the impression of sensed, sensing, sensor is fictitious, so an ultimate observer is untrue.

So in reality there is only Unity? There cannot be an observer or observed. Even saying "observing" is to corrupt it.

What use then is the conceptual framework? What feels more real to you - the World of concepts (duality) or the merging with "just this" - the Unity?

Can this Unity be known? Can it be understood? Can any concept encapsulate it or adequately represent it?

What are the implications of this on a moment by moment basis?

Sitting right here on the edge of this abyss L., how are you able to stop yourself from exploding into the wonderment of the unknowable?

[Lln]

So in reality there is only Unity? There cannot be an observer or observed. Even saying "observing" is to corrupt it.

Very much agreed.

What use then is the conceptual framework? What feels more real to you - the World of concepts (duality) or the merging with "just this" - the Unity?

It seems like a survival mechanism or other sense that has taken too much precedent, in the same way sight is taken to be more important that hearing. The Unity is the only thing that could actually be called real in that it contains everything. But, like you said, to call it anything corrupts it. The way which can be named is not the Way, and all that.

Can this Unity be known? Can it be understood? Can any concept encapsulate it or adequately represent it?

There is absolutely no way I can think of to say that the Unity can be knoknoor understood in the conventional sense. The closest language can come to encapsulating and representing is poetic allusion, simile, metaphor. And it's still misleading because language keeps thought in the foreground.

What are the implications of this on a moment by moment basis?

It's hard to put into words. Everything and nothing. There is only here, now, with no one around. A certain expansion and freedom.

I'm reminded of a story: a young monk walking down a mountain crosses paths with an older monk walking up the mountain with pails of water. "What is enlightenment? " the younger asks.
The old man puts down the pails, smiles, and stretches.
"And after enlightenment?"
He picks up the pails and continues carrying them up the mountain

Sitting right here on the edge of this abyss L., how are you able to stop yourself from exploding into the wonderment of the unknowable?

Wide eyes and belly laughs. Running but stopping still.

Thank you!

[b0dhi]

Hey L

Good going. I love that Zen story too :)

So here we have L now, being no-one, going nowhere. How perfect!!

Wide eyes and belly laughs. Running but stopping still.

Gorgeous! I'm beaming :D

Here's a few sticky ones I'm very interested in hearing you out on:
1. Do you have a choice?
2. What is free will?
3. What is the body?
4. What is time?

[Lln]

1. Do you have a choice?

Does who have a choice? And what could be chosen between?

In L's story, there are choices and the ability to make them, and it's natural for that to continue.

2. What is free will?

An idea that the "I" is creating it's destiny.

3. What is the body?

The limits of the skin, the limits of the Unity.

4. What is time?

A conceptual framework to use memory thoughts to explain what's happening and will happen in the ever-changing present. Coloring what is with personal narrative.

Just another instrument in the orchestra.

[b0dhi]

Hey L

Great answers!!

Does who have a choice? And what could be chosen between?

Lol, I knew when I asked this question - the ball was going to be volleyed back HARD into my side of the court!

You didn't disappoint :D

In L's story, there are choices and the ability to make them, and it's natural for that to continue.

The story will continue to write itself. Many sequels and repeat series too. Christmas re-runs...the lot.

Question is, who gets sucked into the narrative? And does it matter anymore?

3. What is the body?

The limits of the skin, the limits of the Unity.

Can Unity have a limit?

Through the use of your senses only, without the benefit of concept, can you find "skin"?

Who owns this body?

If there is no separate you, can there be an inside and an outside? If there is no inside and outside, where is
"body"

[Lln]

Haha these are so fun to answer!

Question is, who gets sucked into the narrative? And does it matter anymore?

No one gets sucked in, but even if someone did, it wouldn't matter. :)

Can Unity have a limit?

Nope!

Through the use of your senses only, without the benefit of concept, can you find "skin"?

This made me burst out laughing.

Not at all!

Who owns this body?

What body?

If there is no separate you, can there be an inside and an outside? If there is no inside and outside, where is "body"

*poof* it disappeared!

[b0dhi]

Just Brilliant L!

This is it now - realisation or understanding? Glimpse or entry?

[Lln]

This is it now - realisation or understanding? Glimpse or entry?

Real understanding comes from realisation. Entry only needs a glimpse.

There's no such thing as realisation, understanding, or glimpsing. Even if there were, who could do it?