‘No doer of the deed is found...’

[Seamist]

Hi

In hearing there is only 'what is heard'. What is doing the hearing cannot be found. There is no inherent hearer.

good. There is just the experience,no?

I also noticed that when I try to' just listen' I can then find myself in the mode of 'the watcher'

We'll come back to this idea of the "watcher".
For now, do this next one....

Please close your eyes for this exercise, just notice any ‘mental’ images or thoughts that appear and put them aside.

Place a hand on a desk or table (flat surface) - Close your eyes.
Now 'go to' the feeling/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? Are there two things (hand and desk) or is there one thing – sensation?
2) Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt'?
3) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'a sensation'?
4) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT FEELER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the feeler, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

[River1]

When I place my hand on the table I find only sensation - there are not two separate things ‘hand’ and ‘table’, nor one feeling the other. ‘hand on table’ is an idea. I can’t choose to not feel, there is no one deciding to feel, no one ‘doing’ feeling, there is just what is felt. No feeler can be found.

[Seamist]

When I place my hand on the table I find only sensation - there are not two separate things ‘hand’ and ‘table’, nor one feeling the other. ‘hand on table’ is an idea. I can’t choose to not feel, there is no one deciding to feel, no one ‘doing’ feeling, there is just what is felt. No feeler can be found

Great. Nothing I need to add to that.

Imagine holding sensation in the right hand and thought in the left hand.
Does thought, on the one hand, and sensation, on the other, know about each other?
Is there a link between the two?

x

[River1]

Hi Prabhakari,
It seems that thought depends on sensation, but sensation does not depend on thought - Sensation can be present without thought but not vice versa.
Thought can influence my perception of my experience (eg pain) but not actually alter the sensations themselves.
X

[Seamist]

Hi Sara, good morning,

It seems that thought depends on sensation, but sensation does not depend on thought - Sensation can be present without thought but not vice versa.
Thought can influence my perception of my experience (eg pain) but not actually alter the sensations themselves.

Yes, in Buddhist terms, sensation (or "vedana") is primary. And if we look, there is just sensation. We might then also notice that thinking is happening, but it is secondary. And this then becomes
the "second arrow" often (I'm presuming you know this teaching! Let me know if not).

Imagine sensation and thought are resting on either side of a pair of scales. When sensation is looked at it gets heavier. When thought is looked at it gets heavier.
Is it possible to look at both thought and sensation at the same time to balance the scales?

x

[River1]

Good morning Prabhakari,
No, I can't seem to look at both thought and sensation at the same time. I can't balance the scales.
X

[Seamist]

Can you experience them differently depending upon which you are attending to?

[River1]

When I attend to sensations, it seems that my experience of sensation heightens, and thoughts, when they come, are experienced with less 'charge'.

When I am truly 'attending to' thoughts in the sense that I am able to watch them, there remains an awareness of body sensation. When I am 'lost in thought' the experience of sensation is much lessened.

I can be in a space where I am aware of both sensation, and thoughts when they come, but I can't control that experience in terms of an equal balance.

[Seamist]

Good.
I'm going to be out most of today, but will aim to post you this evening.
Doing well, Sara!

[Seamist]

Good Morning Sara
Sorry I didn't manage to get back to yo last night held up with Sangha Day events!

When I attend to sensations, it seems that my experience of sensation heightens, and thoughts, when they come, are experienced with less 'charge'.

I like the way you've described this.

When I am truly 'attending to' thoughts in the sense that I am able to watch them, there remains an awareness of body sensation. When I am 'lost in thought' the experience of sensation is much lessened.

good

When I am truly 'attending to' thoughts in the sense that I am able to watch them, there remains an awareness of body sensation. When I am 'lost in thought' the experience of sensation is much lessened.

ok, so one is always a bit dominant?
Next...
Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities simply colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.
So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:-
Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought
Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual/direct experience) and report back how you go.

[River1]

Labelling in terms of direct experience rather than labelling what something is or what is happening, I feel closer to experience - focusing on colour and shape rather than name labels and associations means I can see the richness of colour and shape more fully. The colours of moss are richer, the experience of the sun on my face is a whole variety of sensations.There is more subtlety, and beauty. I come closer to the actual experience rather than an idea. The habitual labelling seems to limit the experience.
Starting with the bare experience means that stories are not so quick to arise and take root - labelling the sounds of dogs barking simply as sound changes my response to that experience.
With taste I'm particularly aware of the pleasant vedana of the experience, and that I'm less likely to tip into craving when I continue to label the experience 'taste'.

[Seamist]

Hi Lindy

Labelling in terms of direct experience rather than labelling what something is or what is happening, I feel closer to experience - focusing on colour and shape rather than name labels and associations means I can see the richness of colour and shape more fully. The colours of moss are richer, the experience of the sun on my face is a whole variety of sensations.There is more subtlety, and beauty. I come closer to the actual experience rather than an idea. The habitual labelling seems to limit the experience.

This is really lovely to read.

Have a look at an apple. If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise.
http://www.maryshomestead.com/sitebuild ... /fruit.gif

When looking at an apple, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."
What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

xx

[River1]

There is sight, sound, smell, taste, sensation and the thought 'apple' - this is what is known in direct experience. There is no 'apple' separate from this. 'Apple' is not actually known.

[Seamist]

Hi Sara,
I see I called you the wrong name this morning: my apologies.

There is sight, sound, smell, taste, sensation and the thought 'apple' - this is what is known in direct experience. There is no 'apple' separate from this. 'Apple' is not actually known.

Good

This next exercise has a dual purpose. Firstly, to become aware of each and every though as they appear. Secondly, the careful looking for the gap is an example of how carefully to look when looking for the ‘separate self’.
Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 10-15 minutes quietly somewhere, several times throughout your day. Close your eyes and just notice thoughts. Don’t engage with any thought, just notice them.

1. Notice the current thought that is present.
Like when you sit observing the body, a thought might arise “this is my feet” or “here is a pain” or “my breathing is too quick” or “I am bored with this exercise” or “I have better things to do” or any sorts of thoughts.

2. This thought will pass and another thought will come. So just observe this thought passing.

3. Then wait for the next thought to come.

4. When the next thought is present, just notice it, and see how it passes.

5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

6. Repeat #4 and #5 many-many times.

Between the 2 thoughts there is a gap. It can be very short or subtle, just a second or a few seconds before the next thought come in.

This is how to look at thoughts:-
Looking how they come and go, and
Observing the short gap between them.
Noticing how the current thought is passing.
And waiting for the next thought to come.

Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.

Let me know how you go.

[River1]

Hi Prabhakari,

Looking at thoughts coming and going I notice that they are there and then they are not - it's not like I 'see them coming', I can't watch them build up or fade away.
Initially some thoughts seem clear and the space between them definable, whereas at other times there is just a vague 'fog', like a haze of thoughts and feelings, and the space between is harder to find. Or that there are thoughts happening around the edges of my awareness but I can't quite see them. When I go a bit deeper into this 'fog' I find that it comes down to a feeling of unpleasantness, and thoughts about that feeling. The thoughts 'around the edges' is actually an experience of tension plus thought about the tension.

Sara x