On examining sensation, there is only the sensation. There is no sensation of the body. On examining sensation within the body, again there is just sensation and only thought of the body, nothing else.
I understand, Good. This is clear.
But you draw a distinction here once more which I don't understand (or which you need to explain a little more so I understand what you mean).
Sensation of the body and Sensation WITHIN the body?
It's good that you can see that the distinction is from thought but why have you separated two things out like this?
Aside from what thought suggests, is there any real difference?
But where does this acknowledgement of the body affect the awareness of no self.
I don't understand 'awareness of no self' exactly.
Do you mean to experientially realise no separation in the senses? (So it is clear there is no distance between what is apparently being seen, and the location is apparently being seen from). That is for further guidance. It is seen to be a mis-perception. I can give you some pointers in this area via Private Message rather than this forum, as we don't go this deep here.
Is awareness in your statement personal? What has it?
What exactly is there to be aware of 'no self? What is going to become aware of it?
If there's never been an inherent self ever . . . what change is expected?
There's just no real 'I'. And that's it!
Or is your question . . . well, what knows that there's no real 'I' then?
(That's a bigger question)
I say I cannot directly experience the body as a separate thing from sensation, the idea of body as a thing in the world exists in thought only. Yet we say it still exists.
Good. Thank you. And yes we do still say it exists.
However, the question is HOW it exists.
Does it exist inherently i.e. does the body exist as an inherent object - We can realise that it does not, both intellectually and experientially.
Does it exist conventionally i.e. in the realm of concepts, words, thought, communication and language - Yes it does.
Conventionally, I can say I am guiding you, and you are replying. That's fine.
But do these words point to inherently existing things we can find? No.
(I ask you to find an inherently existing 'I' that is being guided or is replying, and it is clear for you that it is entirely dependent on thoughts - including the suggestion that the body is involved . . . or indeed any separate thing you can to think of).
Does that make sense? It can be a little tricky to grasp.
In a nutshell, it is important for me to know right now that any suggestion that an 'I' that is doing anything, or that the body is doing anything (seeing, hearing, controlling, moving itself, choosing, thinking etc) is entirely from thought. As such, there is no 'separate thing' which is 'you' other than what is suggested / dependent on thought. You've said already that it is clear that the suggestion that 'this body is me' is from thoughts only.
Xain ♥
