Request to be guided

[tfarrah]

Do you hope to reach this superideal state by passing the gate?

There is a belief that passing the gate will make the rest of the journey toward perfection a lot more efficient.

[tfarrah]

More reviewing:

From 7 Mar:

The basic unit of experience ... consists of a sense perception or a thought + arising sensations.
These two always come together and will always be there.

This seems like an important fact about experience that I have not fully learned.

Does this mean that sensations are always preceded by a sense perception or a thought?

When I am very still and just experiencing, it seems that a lot of bodily sensations arise with no discernable sense perception or thought preceding them.

I see that I am unclear on something:

When I perceive through the sense of touch, are the sensations (say, the sensation of soft cloth on skin) part of the sense perception, or part of the following "arising sensations"?

[tfarrah]

On 8 Mar I wrote:

When I ask, simply, "what is 'I'?", it seems that each time I observe a set of sensations that corresponds to "I", a new set of sensations arises behind that set .. and then another, and then another ...

A new observer was arising each time. I see now that this does not always happen. Observation of the set of sensations that corresponds to "I" sometimes occurs without a new set of I-sensations arising.

Now I am most of the way through page 5, and my delight in reading through our dialog has diminished. I will pause for now and maybe return later today.

With much gratitude for your guidance,
Terry

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

you have done a lot of hard work and seen much more clearly :-).

I will only come back on the most important points so your homework won't get too long.

There is a belief that passing the gate will make the rest of the journey toward perfection a lot more efficient.

This is a serious hindrance for seeing. The self is an illusion, seeing that will not change anything. It will change how everything is seen. That will not make you perfect nor will it set you out on the road to perfection.

When I perceive through the sense of touch, are the sensations (say, the sensation of soft cloth on skin) part of the sense perception, or part of the following "arising sensations"?

What is the direct experience of sense perception?

Does this mean that sensations are always preceded by a sense perception or a thought?

The answer is, it is the way it is experienced. You said that there are sensations without preceding thoughts. What I said is only about external events and thoughts.

Observation of the set of sensations that corresponds to "I" sometimes occurs without a new set of I-sensations arising.

Does the "set of sensations" correspond to "I" or is it labelled "I"? Look into the direct experience.

Much love,
Ghata

[tfarrah]

Dear Ghata,

My homework today felt hard -- not because of resistance, but because it was hard to see what was being asked. It seemed like advanced level homework. Some of the questions seemed koan-like.

This afternoon I made a mistake while driving and was in a collision. The car suffered a lot of damage. Luckily, no people were injured.

For much of the day I watched thoughts. It became increasingly clear that there is no "I" that is author of the thoughts. Whenever it felt like there was, I examined the experience and saw that the thought arose out of nowhere. I found this very interesting and engaging.

There is a belief that passing the gate will make the rest of the journey toward perfection a lot more efficient.

This is a serious hindrance for seeing. The self is an illusion, seeing that will not change anything. It will change how everything is seen. That will not make you perfect nor will it set you out on the road to perfection.

What can I do about the belief?

When I perceive through the sense of touch, are the sensations (say, the sensation of soft cloth on skin) part of the sense perception, or part of the following "arising sensations"?

What is the direct experience of sense perception?

Wow, I don't know. Fingers touching keyboard ... what is that experience? All I can say at the moment is that there is a knowing that touch is happening. Hearing my housemates keyboard clicks in the other room ... again, just a knowing of sound. In both cases, I don't notice any following "arising sensations".

Does this mean that sensations are always preceded by a sense perception or a thought?

The answer is, it is the way it is experienced. You said that there are sensations without preceding thoughts. What I said is only about external events and thoughts.

I'm not following.

Observation of the set of sensations that corresponds to "I" sometimes occurs without a new set of I-sensations arising.

Does the "set of sensations" correspond to "I" or is it labelled "I"? Look into the direct experience.

I look at the direct experience of this set of sensations. When there is no question in the mind, "does this correspond to I or is it labelled I?", the sensations are just sensations. When that question is in the mind, then ... gaaaah ... all I can say right now is that it feels or seems like "I"!!! Not seeing past that right now. Anger and sleepiness are arising.

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

so glad nobody got injured during the car accident! I hope you recovered from it, it is a shock nevertheless.

Take it easy with the reading today. One page is enough. Turning the reading into hard work takes some of the clarity away.

It became increasingly clear that there is no "I" that is author of the thoughts. Whenever it felt like there was, I examined the experience and saw that the thought arose out of nowhere. I found this very interesting and engaging.

Nice looking :-)

What can I do about the belief?

Seeing that this belief exists and knowing that in reality it will be different is enough. Only if you still fullheartedly believe in it, want it to be that way - seeing yourself on the road to perfection - would mean it is still a hindrance.

Wow, I don't know. Fingers touching keyboard ... what is that experience? All I can say at the moment is that there is a knowing that touch is happening. Hearing my housemates keyboard clicks in the other room ... again, just a knowing of sound. In both cases, I don't notice any following "arising sensations".

Put your fingers on the keyboard again. What is experienced directly? Knowing that touch is happening? Have a look. What is the direct experience of sense perception?

T: Does this mean that sensations are always preceded by a sense perception or a thought?
G:The answer is, it is the way it is experienced. You said that there are sensations without preceding thoughts. What I said is only about external events and thoughts.

T: I'm not following.

Sorry, I didn't say it clearly. I cannot tell how it is experienced in other people. What I can say is that sense perception incl. thought perception is followed by sensations.You are experiencíng sensations without preceding sense perceptions, so obviously sensations can arise without a descernible sense contact.

I look at the direct experience of this set of sensations. When there is no question in the mind, "does this correspond to I or is it labelled I?", the sensations are just sensations. When that question is in the mind, then ... gaaaah ... all I can say right now is that it feels or seems like "I"!!!

:-). Yes it feels or seems like an I. Have a fresh look.

Can you actually find a YOU in these sensations, when feeling them directly? A YOU that is having other sensations, experiences, thoughts. A YOU that is the doer, thinker, controller of life?

Warm regards,
Ghata

[tfarrah]

Dear Ghata,

Today I am travelling a distance to attend an all-day workshop on intuitive healing. This is something I registered for a long time before I had heard of LU. I have had a small amount of instruction in this area before, but today is the first time I will study it in depth. This teacher is based in Chinese medicine and acupuncture. I probably won't have time to re-read another page of our dialog today.

I don't wholeheartedly believe that seeing clearly will put me on the road to the so-called perfection I described. I believe that spiritual maturation, over time, leads me to see the drive for perfection more and more clearly, and to be less driven by it, and that seeing clearly can be a component of that maturation.

Put your fingers on the keyboard again. What is experienced directly? Knowing that touch is happening? Have a look.

Perhaps touch is experienced directly. But what is that; why do I call it touch? I can't deconstruct the experience "touch" any further. I simply know immediately that it is touch. There is an idea that the touch is occurring at a certain point on the body, but that is not experienced directly.

It seems that the knowing of touch is all I can say is happening for sure. It is more real than anything else. Maybe there is no direct experience of touch? None of this seems clear to me.

Yes it feels or seems like an I. Have a fresh look.

Will do.

Love,
Terry

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

thank you for your answer. :-)

"Put your fingers on the keyboard again. What is experienced directly? Knowing that touch is happening? Have a look.

Perhaps touch is experienced directly. But what is that; why do I call it touch? I can't deconstruct the experience "touch" any further. I simply know immediately that it is touch. There is an idea that the touch is occurring at a certain point on the body, but that is not experienced directly.

When I put the fingers on the keyboard, I experience gentle pressure, coolness, spiky pressure on the index fingers.

I believe that spiritual maturation, over time, leads me to see the drive for perfection more and more clearly, and to be less driven by it, and that seeing clearly can be a component of that maturation.

Who would you be without the story of needing to be perfect?

tfarrah wrote:
I look at the direct experience of this set of sensations. When there is no question in the mind, "does this correspond to I or is it labelled I?", the sensations are just sensations. When that question is in the mind, then ... gaaaah ... all I can say right now is that it feels or seems like "I"!!!

:-). Yes it feels or seems like an I. Have a fresh look.

Can you actually find a YOU in these sensations, when feeling them directly? A YOU that is having other sensations, experiences, thoughts. A YOU that is the doer, thinker, controller of life?


Warm regards,
Ghata

[tfarrah]

Hi Ghata,

When I put the fingers on the keyboard, I experience gentle pressure, coolness, spiky pressure on the index fingers.

Oh, OK, sure. These are specific varieties of touch sensation. Now I can't remember where were going with this.

Who would you be without the story of needing to be perfect?

This is sounding like Byron Katie :-)

Without that story, I'd be a lot more chill. Or, perhaps instead, I might be even more anxious because I would not know what to do with myself.

:-). Yes it feels or seems like an I. Have a fresh look.

Can you actually find a YOU in these sensations, when feeling them directly?

No, When feeling them directly, there is only sensation.

A YOU that is having other sensations, experiences, thoughts. A YOU that is the doer, thinker, controller of life?

No.

I was looking at these sensations throughout the day and asking, "What is it about my experience of these sensations that leads me to say 'there is a sense that there is an I'?"

I tried out the hypothesis, "The sensations are accompanied by a belief that the sensations are ME."

I know I wrote this before, but I can't easily find it in the thread. I suspect we concluded that this was not going to be a useful direction.

Watching the sensations now, when what I call "the sense of I" arises, if I immediately say to myself, "just a belief", the sense disappears and only the sensations remain. But that's kind of like talking myself out of the belief, right? It's not seeing the belief immediately as belief (thought).

On 22 Mar you wrote:

The answer to the question: "Is it true that there is no 'I'" will not be found in thoughts but in experiencing it. Only when experiencing the truth you will know for sure. You are not sure about the answer (and you are right about not being sure) because you mostly turn to thoughts for an answer.

That seemed correct when I read it on 22 Mar, then I forgot about it.

When I turn my attention to the sensations I've been talking about, and really feel them, and forget about any questions about "I" -- then there is clearly no "I", nor any "sense of I", in the experience. It's only once I ask the question, "Can any I be found?" that this "sense of I" comes up.

Today you wrote:

Can you actually find a YOU in these sensations, when feeling them directly? A YOU that is having other sensations, experiences, thoughts. A YOU that is the doer, thinker, controller of life?

No, I can't.

So tired. Good night, Ghata.

Terry

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

you've done some real good looking! :-)

Without that story, I'd be a lot more chill. Or, perhaps instead, I might be even more anxious because I would not know what to do with myself

Yes, there is a lot of perceived identity woven into the story of becoming perfect. Who would you be without this identity?

When going ahead with reading, please take only what seems like a small portion and look into it like you did with the first page.

Much love,
Christiane

[tfarrah]

Reviewing.

On 13 Mar I wrote:

I ... thought about how you said, "the looking is very simple. It is the same looking you do when looking for the keys or a matching sock."

I said that I thought about it. That's not what was called for. You didn't ask me to think about this.

OK, so I'm looking for self, the Terry-controller. I'm looking in my experience. Do I find the Terry-controller anywhere in my experience? Is she there on the couch? No. Is she in my ears? No. Is she on top of my head? No.

How did I know that the Terry-controller was not in those places? I wasn't really looking. Instead, I was referring to a sense of self, and that sense said "no". Just now I looked in those places with my eyes and hands and didn't find any control unit.

The rising and falling of my abdomen with breathing--is that her? No.

"Rising and falling" -- that's an action, perception, and sensation, not a place. I wasn't looking for a control unit. I was, again, referring to the sense of self.

Let me continue this inquiry today and see if I can find a controller.

Well, in looking for a controller in this literal, physical sense, I have to report that I cannot look inside the body. I have very few ways to perceive what is inside the body. I can't know what is inside the body by direct experience. I don't find a controller there, but I can't look there.

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

very good that you are becoming aware of that you weren't actually looking and that you are getting into it.
:-)

Looking referring to the body means what sensations are there. And that is where the confusion started. Sensations are there - now what exactly says that these seensations are 'you'?

Without referring to thoughts or mental images, Is there a direct experience of a separate 'YOU' in these sensations, that is at the centre of doing, experiencing, controlling life ?


Warm regards,
Ghata

[tfarrah]

Without referring to thoughts or mental images, Is there a direct experience of a separate 'YOU' in these sensations, that is at the centre of doing, experiencing, controlling life ?

No

[Ghata]

Dear Terry,

Without referring to thoughts or mental images, Is there a direct experience of a separate 'YOU' in these sensations, that is at the centre of doing, experiencing, controlling life ?

No

Nice...:-).

Is there an 'I' in any other body sensation?


Warm regards,
Ghata

[tfarrah]

Is there an 'I' in any other body sensation?

No.