With this experiment, it seems like the table and my hand are just ... an interpretation of what's going on.
I see you've looked at both sides . . . not only 'a hand feeling' but 'a table being felt' - Yes, both are interpretations.
it's an interpretation that seems like a 'non-essential' part of the sensation. Is this how you've been using the word 'inherent'?
In a way.
When I suggest 'inherent', I mean 'completely independent' . . . self-evident. If something is self-evident, it requires no secondary interpretation for it's existence. And yet here, we see that both sides are imputed - Both sides are interpretations.
The main one for this inquiry being 'I am feeling' or 'This body is feeling'.
When you suggest 'non-essential', well I understand what you mean.
But would you agree that such interpretations would be essential for us to attempt to communicate?
I suggest this, as I don't want you to reject interpretations as being 'bad', or 'incorrect'.
It is enough to just recognise what they are. They are imputed.
A 'hand' is imputed to be doing the feeling'.
A 'table' is imputed to be being felt.
When we look for these two things we don't find them (hence the terms non-duality / Advaita 'Not two').
With just touch, there's nothing recognisable as either a table or a hand; the table and hand only become recognised once the mental images (at least) are allowed into the scheme.
Yes, and once the mental images are assumed to be what is really happening, you use your memory of what these items are 'hand' and 'table' and further use your memory for the suggestion 'one is feeling the other'.
But I'm running the risk of telling you what is going on, rather than getting you to tell me what appears to be happening.
Does what i am saying make sense?
Feel completely free to disagree or to tell me what is different in your own words about what appears to be true for you.
We've gone over seeing, hearing and feeling. Was an 'I' or a 'body' found to be responsible for these senses (other than in the contents of thoughts that appear suggesting these things)?
I usually leave the weaker senses of smell and taste out of the examination, but you can examine these in the same way yourself. Can a seperate 'smeller' or 'taster' be found which is separate to the current smell or taste appearing in experience?
If we add together all what we find using all the senses and call it 'the current experience', see what you make of the following inquiry.
1) Right now there is 'the current experience'. Using the senses, can anything else be found other than 'the current experience'?
2) Is there an 'I' or the body usually referred to as 'Jake' found to be doing the experiencing?
3) Can anything be found 'doing experiencing', or is there just 'an experience'?
I chatted about 'non-duality' and 'not two' . . . So . . .
Do you find two things - A body / A Jake experiencing as one thing, and an experience 'being experienced' as the other thing.
Or is there just 'an experience'?
What about the ideas 'I am experiencing' or 'This body is experiencing' . . . what do you make of these ideas?