Thread for 'MichelleG'

[michelleg]

I did the table experiment and perhaps surprisingly I seemed to have the greatest clarity of there being no "I" and no separate entities with the sense of touch...there was just the feeling/sensation of hand-on-table. It was a cold metal table, so the sensation was fairly pronounced. I also experimented with taste and, as with vision, if I placed all of my attention on the sensation of taste (leaving no room for an "I"), I did not experience an I...just the taste.

[Xain]

I did the table experiment and perhaps surprisingly I seemed to have the greatest clarity of there being no "I" and no separate entities with the sense of touch...there was just the feeling/sensation of hand-on-table

Good.
There was probably clarity because you really focussed on what was happening and what could be found.
This is different from thinking what the answer might be.
As you say, there was just 'sensation'. An 'I' could not be found in the sensation itself.
Can you see that saying 'I feel' is just an idea then?

Please let me know at this point what seems clear for you in relation to 'the senses'.
We will do 'thoughts and thinking' a little later.

if I placed all of my attention on the sensation of taste (leaving no room for an "I"), I did not experience an I...just the taste.

Yes. Nice work!
Again, we see it is just a sensation alone.

Can it be seen then that we don't find an 'I' doing any of the senses. We don't find 'the body' actively performing the senses. There is just 'sensation' each time it is investigated.
If we suggest anything that was doing the senses, that can only be an assumption - An idea - A thought?
Does that seem clear?

I noticed in your replies you said 'I have the greatest clarity with' and 'When I placed my attention'. These are further areas we can examine next.

Xain ♥

[michelleg]

Xain,

I posted two days ago and don't know what happened...the post isn't showing up here now. Anyway, I did the experiments with touch and taste. With touch, it was actually fairly easy to get clarity on the sense of there just being the sensation of touch, with no separate table or hand. It was a metal table that was sort of cold, so perhaps that prominent sensation made it easier. With taste it was a little harder to keep the, "I", out of it, but it do understand that the I is just a thought that quickly comes into the experience when one is not fully absorbed in the experience.

[michelleg]

OK...now I see my post and your reply about the touch experiments...I don't know why they weren't showing up before... please disregard that last post and I will respond a bit later regarding what seems clear to me at this point in regard to the senses...

[michelleg]

(now I see that I needed to click on Page 2)

One thought that occurs to me now is that if there were an "I" in experience, in order to know what that "I" was/is, I would have to be able to separate it out from the experience so I could isolate and identify it. This way of thinking helps me "get it." Thinking about not being able to separate out an "I" from experience led me to begin to sense unity...the sense that nothing at all can be separated out. But now when I try to go back and think about that, the sense of unity I felt isn't there so much. It's as if trying to get it gets in the way of getting it. One seems to need to "happen upon" unity without expecting anything in order to sense it (at least that's how it is for me at this point).

[Xain]

This way of thinking helps me "get it."

I'm just a little confused here. There isn't really anything to 'get' or 'understand'.
It is not about a 'way of thinking' - Simply tell me what is being found / discovered.

Thinking about not being able to separate out an "I" from experience led me to begin to sense unity.

Again, a little confused. What do you mean 'sense unity' - This guidance has never been anything about 'sensing unity'. Is this an expectation?

The sense of unity I felt isn't there so much

Have we not established that there was no separate 'I' sensing?
Or are you describing something else?
What 'I' is doing the sensing? Which sense is being referred to?

One seems to need to "happen upon" unity without expecting anything in order to sense it

What do you mean 'sensing unity' - I am lost. This is a new phrase that has no bearing in this guidance.
Can you find an 'I' here right now that can sense something?

Xain ♥

[michelleg]

Just disregard the last post...it was obviously not useful.

Yes, it is clear...there is no "I" "doing" the sensing...the sensing is just happening...the "I" that comes into the experience is just a thought.

[Xain]

Hi Michelle

It's cool - But I suspected a slight expectation in what you wrote which I needed to clarify.
It could be that 'I am expecting to experience unity' is something that is sought for - An expectation of this process.
What would it be if nothing changed - other than to realise that there is no separate self, no 'I' that could change . . . and just to realise that there has never been a separate 'I' that could change or get a new experience?

'When I placed my attention' . . .

Ok, let's have a look at control and choice next.

Try this:
Choose one of your hands - Left or right, it doesn't matter which one.
Now when you feel you wish to, raise that hand into the air.

Do this experiment as many times as you wish, and each time inquire:
What is making the choice? What is deciding on that particular hand?
Is there an 'I' choosing the hand that can be found?
What is controlling the arm - Making the muscles contract - Making the hand go into the air?
What can be found that is doing that?
Is there a 'controller' of the hand and arm to be found?

Xain ♥

[michelleg]

It seems to me that a thought arises either "right" or "left" and then another thought arises, "now," and the corresponding hand lifts. Or maybe it's just an impulse to raise the hand at a certain time. It seems that the thought arises from nowhere and determines which hand raises. It's just a voice in my head that says, "right," or "left." I suppose I could think of that voice as "me," but it's just a thought...there's know substance to it or anything lasting after the thought, just awareness.

It's as though the thought leads to some sort of urge or desire or impetus for the hand/arm to raise. There's the thought and then the hand raises. I honestly can't tell you what happens between the thought and the hand raising. For instance, sometimes I can have the thought to raise the hand, but it doesn't raise right away...why it raises in the moment it raises, I don't know. This seems to happen the sleepier I get. In these situations there isn't a clear "now" thought to raise the hand.

There's no one making the muscles contract when the hand goes in the air. It's as if by magic the thought has the power to make the arm/hand lift.

[Xain]

It seems to me that a thought arises either "right" or "left" and then another thought arises, "now," and the corresponding hand lifts.

Ok, that's good observation.

Could it go something like this:

Thought: Ok, right
Thought: Now
Action: Hand raises into the air
Thought (maybe?): Done it

It's as though the thought leads to some sort of urge or desire or impetus for the hand/arm to raise.

We will look deeper into thoughts at a later stage.
The question to be asked is . . . are the thoughts simply 'there' as part of what is happening / what is being experienced. Or do the thoughts themselves actually 'DO' things.
Is it necessary for a thought to be there each and every time something needs to get done?
Or does it just appear that way when a task / action is concentrated upon?

There's no one making the muscles contract when the hand goes in the air. It's as if by magic the thought has the power to make the arm/hand lift.

As before, does the thought actually 'do stuff'?

Can what is choosing be found in the experience?
Can what is controlling the hand be found in the experience?
If it is said 'I am controlling' or 'I am choosing', what is 'I' then in these statements from what you have found so far?

Xain ♥

[michelleg]

The thought "left" or "right" sometimes occurs prior to the lifting of that hand and sometimes almost at the same time. Could the hand lift without the thought of lifting it happening prior? I don't know...actually, yes. I tried it again and didn't notice the thought prior. Yes, it seems possible that it only appears that thoughts lead to actions. Although the habit of associating a thought with a subsequent action, as though one proceeds from the other, is pretty strong and pretty automatic.

What is choosing cannot be found in the experience. Even if I did believe that the thought "left" or "right" must proceed the raising of the left or right hand, I have no idea what it is that chooses which thought, "left" or "right," enters my head. This makes me think of when human beings were pre-verbal...they couldn't have had the thought "left" or "right" enter their head. OK, now that I think about it, absolutely actions happen without thoughts proceeding them, as in fight or flight behaviors. I have not idea what is controlling the hand...which hand and when it actually raises. I have no idea what is doing the choosing..."I" is just a thought... Although, why does a hand raise at all? "I" read the instructions you wrote for the exercise and "I" follow them by raising a right or left hand...but who or what is following the instructions? Presumably the mind...some brain process...but I know you will ask me if I can find that mind or process in the experience...and the answer is I cannot. I can't identify or see or experience the mechanism that controls that behavior. I think I'm doing it...but, really, it just happens. It's very tricky, though, it's so easy to go back to automatically assuming there's an "I" that is controlling what happens. It takes vigilance to un-do that way of thinking.

That's all for now...I'll be on a camping trip so won't be able to respond again until Sunday...thank you again for your guidance!

[Xain]

Could the hand lift without the thought of lifting it happening prior? I don't know...actually, yes. I tried it again and didn't notice the thought prior.

OK, now that I think about it, absolutely actions happen without thoughts proceeding them, as in fight or flight behaviors.

Good. In fact, consider - How many times during the day do you think that your hands move around with no thought occurring at all?

What is choosing cannot be found in the experience.

Good. So if it is said 'I choose', what is 'I' in this statement - Could it be just an idea? A thought?
If it is said 'I control', what is 'I' in this statement? Again, could it just be an idea? A thought popping up?

It's very tricky, though, it's so easy to go back to automatically assuming there's an "I" that is controlling what happens. It takes vigilance to un-do that way of thinking.

Your statements suggest there is an 'I' that is assuming. But is there?
Vigilance is being done by what?

I have no idea what it is that chooses which thought, "left" or "right," enters my head.
I think I'm doing it

We'll now look at thinking.

Do this -
Think a thought - Any thought. Or you could imagine something - That's pretty much a similar thing.

Now inquire:
What created that thought? Can you find an 'I' that created it?
Does the thought have a location? Does it belong to 'you' (meaning a separate you that can be located)?
'My thoughts' - Who or what owns it? Can you find the owner of thoughts?
Is there a controller of thoughts at all?
If there was control over thoughts, surely we could choose to have pleasant thoughts all the time.

Xain ♥

[michelleg]

I cannot find an "I" that created the thought. It went like this: "I" (this body-mind) read your instruction...then came a thought about having a thought...and then a thought came ("I have to mow the lawn")

It's really hard not to associate the thought with my head...the idea of thoughts coming from the mind is so ingrained...but I cannot actually locate the thought as though it has substance to it. I'm reminded of when I dream...those thoughts don't seem to come from my mind, they seem to come from somewhere outside of me.

If the thought belongs to anything it belongs to whatever perceived it...it seems like it came from the same "place" or entity that perceived it.

There's absolutely no controller of thoughts...they simply come at will...seemingly out of nowhere. They hijack experience if they are allowed to.

[Xain]

It's really hard not to associate the thought with my head...the idea of thoughts coming from the mind is so ingrained...but I cannot actually locate the thought as though it has substance to it.

This is excellent, Michelle. Really good observation!

And you are right - It is so tempting to associate thoughts with the head area because of continual conditioning surrounding the subject of thoughts in the head / use your head /brain used for thinking etc

If the thought belongs to anything it belongs to whatever perceived it...it seems like it came from the same "place" or entity that perceived it.

I follow you, and logically this makes sense.
But is there any sort of separate perceiver? Can one be found?
Is there ever 'a thought' and 'a perceiver of that thought' as two separate things . . . other than in ideas?

So let's start opening things up . . .

Has any thought been created by you?
Has any thought that has been experienced, been experienced by 'you' (meaning a separate self?)
Has any thought ever related to you . . . ever? What I mean is, if a thought is experienced with 'I' in it, does that 'I' relate to a real separate you? Has it ever?

Xain ♥

[michelleg]

So, there is something that is aware of the thought.

No, no thought has been created by me. They just happen. But sometimes thoughts seem to arise as a reaction to a specific something else that has occurred.

No thought that has been experienced by a separate self. Thoughts are perceived...although, as you said, the occurrence of the thought and the perception of the thought are the same. They are not separate.

"I" is just a thought like all other thoughts. It is an idea. "I" doesn't exist other than as a thought. No thought has ever related to a real, separate me. I really get that "I" is just a thought. But this habit of thinking of "I" as a me...as a separate entity is SO ingrained. It really takes focus and concentration to see that "I" is nothing of substance.