Seeking guidance through the gateless gate

[alorac]

Is it clear to you that these statements are from assumptions? - They are from thinking what the answer is, rather than going to the experience directly . . . where none of these things are found.

Yes.

--Alorac

[alorac]

(I'm not sure if I posted this correctly. So I am posting again.)

Is it clear to you that these statements are from assumptions? - They are from thinking what the answer is, rather than going to the experience directly . . . where none of these things are found.

Yes.

--Alorac

[Xain]

Great!
Please really take notice of what you've just realised.
You have directly compared the experience with assumptions from thought.
The two things were different.

Let's proceed on now to 'hearing' - Approach this in the same way - Just focus only on this one sense for the moment.

Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds in the room where you are, or sounds from outside.
Whatever it is, I'll just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
3) An 'I'? A 'Body'? A 'Person'? Can these be found? Or (as we saw before) are these statements assumptions through thought?

Xain ♥

P.S. There may be a subtle desire coming up to go to the 'feeling' sense of the head or the head area (sides of the head etc).
Notice this if it comes up and notice the strange (and erroneous) tendency to go to 'feeling' to try to find an answer to a question that relates to 'hearing'.

[alorac]

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
3) An 'I'? A 'Body'? A 'Person'? Can these be found? Or (as we saw before) are these statements assumptions through thought?

1. No
2. What is doing the hearing cannot be found. There is only what can be heard.
3. None of these can be found in hearing. Any assertion about the presence of these things arise from assumptions through thought.

--Alorac

[Xain]

Good - Simple as that so far.

Ok, we move on to 'Feeling' now.
This exercise can be quite revealing since the subject / object belief of a 'me' (the body) feeling objects and an external world is a very strong one.

Please close your eyes for this exercise, as the visual sense is very powerful and may take you away from answering only from the feeling sense alone.

Place a hand on a desk or table (flat surface) - Close your eyes.
Now 'go to' the sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on desk' and answer from what you can FIND.

1) How many things do you find? I mean, are there two things (and hand and a desk) or is there one thing - A sensation.
2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'a sensation'?
3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'?

Any assertion about the presence of these things arise from assumptions through thought

Good. What about 'feeling' now? Be honest.
What about asserting 'I am feeling'? Or asserting 'This body is doing the feeling'?

Xain ♥

[alorac]

1) How many things do you find? I mean, are there two things (and hand and a desk) or is there one thing - A sensation.
2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'a sensation'?
3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'?

Your questions about vision and hearing seemed easy to answer. These questions don't seem as easy. It seems that there are two things going on. I can feel a smooth, hard surface, and I can also feel a slight compression in my fingertips. If I press harder, the compression feels stronger in my fingertips. I use the term "my" fingertips because they seem to be the source of the sensations. By experience alone, I have no sense that my eyes are the source of vision nor that my ears are the source of hearing, but I do sense that my fingertips are the source of this touch.

What about 'feeling' now? Be honest.
What about asserting 'I am feeling'? Or asserting 'This body is doing the feeling'?

Unlike vision and hearing, it does seem that the body is doing the feeling. On the other hand, it is all just sensations, so I don't have any direct experience of an 'I.' With vision and hearing, things seem simple. Not so with touch. I must confess to some confusion at this point, Xain.

--Alorac

[Xain]

Going to the experience only (with eyes closed), what is the distance found between the two things - The hand feeling and the surface being felt?
Just check once again that there are two clear things being found.

Don't move the fingers around - Just rest the hand on the surface and 'go to' the feeling we would normally call 'hand on desk'. (Movement we can look at later on - At the moment, this may start to cloud / confused the guidance).

Describe the experience 'fingers feeling desk' and then describe the experience 'desk being felt'.

Xain ♥

[alorac]

Thanks, Xain. I get it now. There is no distance between the hand feeling and the surface being felt. There is only one experience. The experience 'fingers feeling desk' and the experience 'desk being felt' are the same.

--Alorac

[Xain]

Great!
And I thank you for your honesty - It's OK to disagree with my reasoning or suggestions. I sincerely want you to be clear on things in your own understanding and realisation - It's the only thing worth having here.
Please ensure that what we are looking at together is completely clear to you at each stage - Say if it is not.

You could go into that examination again with eyes closed and recognise there is just 'a sensation'.
If you examine 'the sensation', you should find that to say 'Hand is feeling' or 'Desk is being felt' are both ideas / thoughts about what is happening. Can this be realised?
Like I said previously, and be honest - What about asserting 'I am feeling'? Or asserting 'This body is doing the feeling'?
Are these found or are these (as before) assumptions through thought / beliefs about what you think is really going on?

As a sideline, you may notice a tendency for the mind to create mental images - An imagined hand on an imagined desk, as if these images actually represented reality / what was really happening. Once again, notice these for what they are (if they occur), put them aside in the investigation, and go to the 'feeling' sense alone without distractions.

Let's proceed on now to 'hearing' - Approach this in the same way - Just focus only on this one sense for the moment.

Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds in the room where you are, or sounds from outside.
Whatever it is, I'll just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
3) An 'I'? A 'Body'? A 'Person'? Can these be found? Or (as we saw before) are these statements assumptions from what is believed to be happening (but cannot be found)?

Xain ♥

[alorac]

We already did both hearing and seeing.

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
3) An 'I'? A 'Body'? A 'Person'? Can these be found? Or (as we saw before) are these statements assumptions from what is believed to be happening (but cannot be found)?

1. No
2. What is doing the hearing cannot be found. There is only what can be heard.
3. None of these can be found in hearing. Any assertion about the presence of these things arise from assumptions through thought.

I'm ready for what's next after vision, hearing, and touching the desk.

[Xain]

Sorry, I'm getting lost in my own guidance :)

Well the other senses (stating the obvious) are smell and taste.
You can do each of those in turn in your own way if you wish - The same consideration for each.
Can what is smelling or tasting be found in the experience, or is there just 'what can be smelt' and 'what can be tasted'.
I usually leave the weaker senses out.

So adding all the senses together now, we could say that right now there is 'an experience'.
Can what is experiencing be found? Or is there just 'an experience'.
Is there an 'I' currently 'experiencing'?
Is the body currently 'experiencing?'
Or (as I'm sure you know we are leading up to) . . . could 'I am experiencing' or even 'this body is having an experience' be assumptions through thought?

Xain ♥

[alorac]

I have no problem with seeing, hearing, smelling, and tasting. But I see three problems with sensation. Firstly, touching the desk with my hand is different from touching it with my elbow. In both cases, I sense the desk, but the body part doing the touching seems to matter. I said that 'fingers feeling desk' and 'desk being felt’ are the same sensation, but on further examination, it appears that they are not because ‘desk being felt’ can also be ‘elbow feeling desk.’ So it does seem that the body is doing the feeling.
Secondly, sensation can refer to an internal sensation such as a toothache or an itch. I can’t see my eyes; I can’t hear my ears; I can’t smell my nose; I can’t taste my tongue. But I can feel my body.
Thirdly, as I go about my daily business, I don’t normally have to concern myself with the possibility of a distressful visual image: if someone shines a bright light in my eyes, I can look away or close my eyes. I can’t turn off my hearing, smelling, and tasting, but I don’t normally encounter unpleasant sounds, smells, or tastes. On the other hand, I am continually sensitive to the possibility of pain. I am vigilant not to stub my toe, injure myself with a knife or hammer, burn myself from a hot stove, fall down stairs, etc. My point is that I identify closely with my body. It is difficult for me to say, “I am not my body.”

I am not yet ready to tackle the questions you posed at the end of your posting for two reasons: The first is my concern about sensation as expressed above. The second is that we have examined each sense individually, but not in combination.

--Alorac

[Xain]

The second is that we have examined each sense individually, but not in combination.

Does adding the senses in combination change things drastically?
Why? Surely the senses don't change?

Firstly, touching the desk with my hand is different from touching it with my elbow.

You seem to have immediately drifted back to pre-conceived ideas about what is happening.
When we did the exercise on feeling, did you find a hand feeling (touching) a desk?
You could try the same exercise we did but with your elbow - Close your eyes - Are there two things there? One a desk, two an elbow, and the one (body) responsible for feeling another.

But I can feel my body.

What is this 'I' that feels the body? (That the main crux of this investigation to be fair - The very reason you are doing these exercises).

I am continually sensitive to the possibility of pain

What is the 'I' that feels pain?

It is difficult for me to say, “I am not my body.”

This guidance isn't about rejecting anything - It's about comparing your experience with preconceived ideas you have about what is going on so you can see the preconceived ideas for exactly what they are.
The one we are exploring at the moment is 'I (the body) is experiencing an outside world'.

Xain ♥

[alorac]

So adding all the senses together now, we could say that right now there is 'an experience'.
Can what is experiencing be found? Or is there just 'an experience'.

There is just an experience.

Is there an 'I' currently 'experiencing'?

On the basis of experience alone, no 'I' can be found.

Is the body currently 'experiencing?'

As indicated by my last posting, I am uncertain about this. Clearly, no eyes are seen; no ears are heard, no nose is smelled, and no tongue is tasted. It is not as clear that no body is felt. So, I would agree that the body is not currently experiencing, but with some uncertainty.

Could 'I am experiencing' or even 'this body is having an experience' be assumptions through thought?

Yes, these statements could be assumptions through thought.

--Alorac

[Xain]

Clearly, no eyes are seen; no ears are heard, no nose is smelled, and no tongue is tasted.

Sure - But this is a mental approach to it. All these which you are mentioning are 'standard assumptions' are they not?

Is the body currently 'experiencing?'

As indicated by my last posting, I am uncertain about this. Clearly, no eyes are seen; no ears are heard, no nose is smelled, and no tongue is tasted. It is not as clear that no body is felt. So, I would agree that the body is not currently experiencing, but with some uncertainty.

There is a subtle but important difference between what we are suggesting here.
1) The body is NOT experiencing (this is a position of logic, with the alternative being 'The body IS experiencing')
2) The suggestion that 'The body is experiencing' is a statement from memory, belief and thought. Hence also 'Ears are Hearing, Tongue is Tasting' etc - Does this make sense?

I am continually sensitive to the possibility of pain

Let's just investigate this a little more - I'm not going to ask you to place your hand on a hot stove :-)

There is a subtle difference between 'There is pain' . . . which we could say like 'There is a sensation', and 'I am experiencing pain' or 'This body is experiencing the pain'.

In this first case, all we would need to find is the experience 'pain', just like the 'sensation' in the experiment we did - In the second positions, we would need to establish two things - The experience 'pain' and a separate self that is the experiencer; An INHERENT self which is FINDABLE.
These two separate things should be easily found if such a thing were absolutely true (and not a separation instigated via thought).

Xain ♥