The Gate

A few more questions, Rosie.

The body is a part of the current experience as there is the sensation of limbs moving and gurgling happening.

If I were to ask you 'what is experiencing these things', what would be your honest reply?

Imagine talking to your best friend about the experience of seeing through the illusion of self.
Write in direct speech what you are telling her.
Speak from your heart.

Does the body move itself?

We've mentioned that a certain sense of 'distance' might be apparent in the senses, and to not be distracted by that.
With that said, do you feel like you are 'in a body'?

Is the body 'you' in anything other than a descriptive sense / for the purpose of communication?

How confident are you that you've realised there is no inherent self (no real 'I').
Is there any confusion in any area that you'd like to mention?

Xain ♥

Hi Xain
I am currently having power cut outs. So it is likely I will be unable to reply for a few days. I will mull things over and get back to you when I am back online.

Examine a sensation, like we did in the exercise on 'feeling'.
Is there anything in the sensation itself (not a thought about it) that suggests "body" or any other label

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.

What I am curious about is that we have stated that we have awareness of the fact we are functioning in the world for the sake of every day existence; we have been acknowledging a body exists for the purposes of communication. But where does this ackowledgement of the body affect the awareness of no self. 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.

I will answer your questions when I can plug in again. I can see i need to look closer at this as although I feel I understand the exercises, something feels unsatisfactory for me.

Rosie x

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 ♥

Three days without reply. Do you wish to continue, Rosie?

Xain ♥

Hi Xain

Apologies, I have difficulties with our power here so have not been plugging in. I think the power issue is sorted now.

Thank you for your messages.

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?

Yes I see i shouldn't have suggested there was different realms of sensation; outside of the body and within the body. Sensation is just sensation and boundaries of mind / body are thought made.

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.

I understand that there is no I and any concept of my body and me is based on thought. My questions about body is not about wanting to understand the relationship of 'me' and 'my body' and awareness of it. I fully accept body exists and it just is. Any awareness of body and its choices are based on thoughts and ideas on body. My curiosity in these previous emails stems from an uncertainty about to what extent we acknowledge the body as a thing separate from its senses. So perhaps as you say these questions are not suitable for here.

I can see my language has been ambiguous over the last few emails and in my questioning I have at point doubted and had to re examine. I do feel confident about the realisation that there is no inherent self. The body is the current experience and there is no central point from which to step back and assess or process this experience. All there is is experience that comes and goes.

Rosie x

Sensation is just sensation and boundaries of mind / body are thought made.

Excellent - Thank you - This explanation is clear to me.

My curiosity in these previous emails stems from an uncertainty about to what extent we acknowledge the body as a thing separate from its senses.

Could you give an example of what you mean, please? If you can add what you have realised in the guidance, that would help.

You say 'what extent we acknowledge' . . . I don't understand.
If we say 'I am seeing' or 'This body is seeing' . . . isn't it clear that this is entirely dependent on thought?
We don't need to acknowledge or change anything - We just realise what we are dealing with.
Or is this not 100% clear for you? We can look deeper into this if you want to.

You say 'body as a thing separate from IT'S senses.
Have you realised that the suggestion that the body HAS senses is from thought?
We can say 'Eyes are seeing and brain interprets the information' . . . but again, can you see that is dependent on thought?
We can look deeper into this also if you wish.

This may tie-in with 'the apparent distance between what is being experienced and a location from where experiencing is assumed to be done from'.
Again, I can chat with you about this in Private Message. It's beyond the scope here.
It just needs to be clear that anything you suggests as the cause of 'what is doing the experiencing from the location where it appears to be being done from' is dependent on thoughts (suggestions like 'me', 'eyes' or 'body').

The body is the current experience

What exactly do you mean?

We could say that a cup is an object - It appears in experience.
A hand is an object - It appears in experience.
But you say that the body IS the current experience. I don't understand that phrasing.
In this phrase, you seem to be swinging towards a belief that the body has something to do with experience itself, not that the body as an object appears in experience.

Xain ♥

Hi Xain

I have realised in this guidance that any concept of body and mind are thought based. I see that the body functions of its own accord without 'me' choosing or controlling. My experience is the sensations that are apparent in hearing, seeing, feeling etc. It can not be said to be true that the eyes see or ears hear as all that can be experienced is seeing or hearing.

By body is the current experience I mean to say that the body is another part of the current experience, as an object in the experience. If one arm touches another arm there is the sensation of two limbs meeting. If the stomach rumbles then my current experience includes the physical sensation of this (with the knowing that any thoughts of 'my stomach' is constructed and not directly experienced). It is just sensation.

My uncertainty has been based around, as you say, the apparent distance between what is being experienced and apparent location from where it is assumed to be experienced.

Rosie x

Great Rosie!
Thank you for clearing all that up.

One further question, please (which I already asked, but I think we might have both missed it).

"Imagine talking to your best friend about the experience of seeing through the illusion of self.
Write in direct speech what you are telling her.
Speak from your heart."

Xain ♥

Hi xain

"Imagine talking to your best friend about the experience of seeing through the illusion of self.
Write in direct speech what you are telling her.
Speak from your heart."

I have seen that the ideas I had about who I am is entirely made up in my thoughts. They are not even my thoughts, they are just thought, passing in and out, just as the breathe passes in and out and just as the trees blow in the wind. There is no need to worry of what I should be doing. There is no structure of 'me'. No point from which to reflect on myself. No history, no future. Just sensation and thought flowing in and out in this moment.

Rosie

What a lovely reply!
The other guides are happy that you've realised 'no self', and so am I.

Thank you for sticking with the process.
This guidance is at an end, although I am happy to give you a few further pointers on how and where you can continue to examine things.

There are groups on Facebook for 'New Arrivals', 'Further looking' etc - I can add you to those if you wish (and if you are on Facebook).
Send me your Facebook name and/or page link in a Private Message, and I can sort that out for you.
(Click the Red Name 'Xain' and choose 'Send Private Message').

Of course, you are free at any time to send me a Private Message on here if you want to chat about something, or want my advice.

Very best wishes for the future and Happy New Year!!!!
Xain ♥