I want to stop this now!

[Eloratea]

Eloratea wrote:Ok, but can you feel abrupt change of aliveness on the edge of the body?

What do you mean?

Can you feel very clearly the end of the body? Where the body touches the clothes? It seems that you think to be somewhere in the body? That there are sharp edges in your life experience.

Eloratea wrote:How? Can you explain? Where do you end and experience begin?

Yes. There is experience of many things. But I don't experience myself. Experience is always of something other than me. But is there a definite line between myself and experience? When looked for this doesn't seem to be the case.

There isn't. There is no you. Just the experience.

But does that mean that I am experience? No.

Right. You are not. Experience is.

If all of a sudden all experience would cease - senses would stop sensing, thoughts would stop appearing, sensations would stop appearing - would I still be? Yes. Not as a something though, but I would still be.

How? As what?

[tek]

Can you feel very clearly the end of the body? Where the body touches the clothes?

Yes. Can't you feel where the body touches the clothes?

It seems that you think to be somewhere in the body? That there are sharp edges in your life experience.

I don't experience a sharp edge in experience. But the experience is of being in this body.

There isn't. There is no you. Just the experience.

You say this, yes. But if there is no experiencer, there can't be experience either. It's a logical fallacy. How can there be experience if it is not experienced?

How? As what?

As the Self.

[Eloratea]

Eloratea wrote:Can you feel very clearly the end of the body? Where the body touches the clothes?
Yes. Can't you feel where the body touches the clothes?

Look again, it is very vague feeling.

I don't experience a sharp edge in experience. But the experience is of being in this body.

Where, how? With somewhat greater amount of words, this would work much better.

Eloratea wrote:There isn't. There is no you. Just the experience.
You say this, yes. But if there is no experiencer, there can't be experience either. It's a logical fallacy. How can there be experience if it is not experienced?

It is a belief. How is with babies and animals? They don't have „I“, no identification, yet there is an experience of life. Baby-experience, animal-experience. How different is human experience?

As the Self.

:) self is a label. What do you mean by it? Which representation does it have in reality?
Is there some mysterious entity in the body?

Proper looking before reply would be beneficial.

[tek]

Look again, it is very vague feeling.

I don't really understand what you mean. I can feel where my body touches the clothes, but somehow I don't think that's what you are pointing at.

Where, how? With somewhat greater amount of words, this would work much better.

Well, the experience is that I am all through this body. There's not an inch of it that is not filled with me/aliveness.

self is a label. What do you mean by it? Which representation does it have in reality?
Is there some mysterious entity in the body?

I don't mean the label "self". I mean Self as in what I am. It's not an entity, not a thing, not a thought or feeling. It's me.

You are saying that I don't exist. I can't accept that, because there is nothing that is more sure for me than that I exist. It is self-evident, can't be denied.

[Eloratea]

I don't mean the label "self". I mean Self as in what I am. It's not an entity, not a thing, not a thought or feeling. It's me.

Now we came to this: you are self and self is you :)

You are saying that I don't exist. I can't accept that, because there is nothing that is more sure for me than that I exist. It is self-evident, can't be denied.

What is self evident is this aliveness, presence, awareness... which thought label as „you“.
Leave the thought aside and see what is left. It is simple and obvious.

[tek]

I don't think the problem is the "I". I think the problem is the belief "I am the body".

[Eloratea]

Hey, body is body. You probably say my leg, my head…so obviously there is no absolute identification with the body.

Body is life's experiential tool. And „I am the body“ is thought that accompany its functioning.
It is the same with whatever you would point – I am that. „That " might exist as real thing, like body, or be also just a thought, but „I“ is always just a thought without anything real behind; Personification of life experience.
Just look and feel the experience; don't get trapped by thought content.

[tek]

Hey, body is body. You probably say my leg, my head…so obviously there is no absolute identification with the body.

Yes, that's true. But it could as well be that the body, with this brain, has created sort of an "entity", or whatever you want to call it, that say's "my body". How would I know?

Body is life's experiential tool. And „I am the body“ is thought that accompany its functioning.
It is the same with whatever you would point – I am that. „That " might exist as real thing, like body, or be also just a thought, but „I“ is always just a thought without anything real behind;

Are you saying that thoughts are not real.

And does it really matter whether you call yourself "awareness", "aliveness", "Self" or "I". Sure those are just labels, but one has to use labels to convey something. If I say "I exist", I obviously don't mean that I am the thought "I", but really what the thought "I" refers to. What it points to.
So, if I say "I don't exist", what am I pointing to that doesn't exist?

[Eloratea]

Yes, that's true. But it could as well be that the body, with this brain, has created sort of an "entity", or whatever you want to call it, that say's "my body". How would I know?

There is no you to know. And those are just thoughts dancing around.

Are you saying that thoughts are not real.

Thoughts are real, but their content doesn't have to be.

And does it really matter whether you call yourself "awareness", "aliveness", "Self" or "I".

It doesn't matter. Nothing is true.

Sure those are just labels, but one has to use labels to convey something.

yes, but there are different sort of labels. Some pointing to real things, some not.

If I say "I exist", I obviously don't mean that I am the thought "I", but really what the thought "I" refers to. What it points to.

If you look you will see that there is nothing behind that thought.

So, if I say "I don't exist", what am I pointing to that doesn't exist?

If I say Santa Claus doesn't exist, what am I pointing to that doesn't exist?

[tek]

There is no you to know. And those are just thoughts dancing around.

Yes, they are thoughts dancing around. But they appear to/in something. Is that not true? That "something" is what I refer to as me.

It doesn't matter. Nothing is true.

That's a contradiction. The statement "nothing is true" suggest that something is true, since even the statement "nothing is true" is not true. It's a paradox.

If you look you will see that there is nothing behind that thought.

Yes, sure. I will find no THING behind that thought. But who say's that I necessarily am a THING? Why must I be an object? If I'm not an object, then I can't be found as an object, right?

If I say Santa Claus doesn't exist, what am I pointing to that doesn't exist?

Santa Claus. That's not the same thing though. If you point at yourself saying "I don't exist", then who is doing the pointing? None?
Besides, Santa is an imaginary appearance that is observed. The Self never appears anywhere. Even the thought "I" is observed, is it not? Isn't it observed by "something" that never appears?

[Eloratea]

Yes, they are thoughts dancing around. But they appear to/in something. Is that not true? That "something" is what I refer to as me.

In this awareness here and now. It is a dancing hall for the whole experience including the thoughts.

The statement "nothing is true" suggest that something is true, since even the statement "nothing is true" is not true. It's a paradox.

I meant nothing of the mentioned. „I“ is nothing of the above mentioned.
It is a label and you can label whatever you want as „I“ but believing that there is some separate self controlling and doing the life is delusion.

Yes, sure. I will find no THING behind that thought. But who say's that I necessarily am a THING? Why must I be an object? If I'm not an object, then I can't be found as an object, right?

Those are still only thoughts defending the belief in self. Just look at it.
Can you be found as spirit/soul?

Santa Claus. That's not the same thing though. If you point at yourself saying "I don't exist", then who is doing the pointing? None?

None.
And when I say -you don't exist- it is a finger pointing to the moon. You need to look at the moon, not at the finger.

Besides, Santa is an imaginary appearance that is observed.

It is never observed, not directly, not in reality. It is imagined character, like some movie character.
This is about knowing what can be directly experienced and what belongs to the thoughts-realm. They are making together this life experience.

The Self never appears anywhere.

Maybe because it doesn't exist :)

Even the thought "I" is observed, is it not? Isn't it observed by "something" that never appears?

Sure, there is observing of thoughts, also happening in awareness. All belonging to this experience here and now.

[tek]

Okay, so you are saying that this experience is all that is?

[Eloratea]

I might tell you that there are countless worlds and simultaneous realities; glorious states of consciousness, but of what use would it be for you? That would be just concepts that mind would chase further, causing the well known feeling of agony.
Instead, I am pointing you to look into what is right now, what can be known directly.
Kingdom of heaven is closer than hands and feet,…treasure is always hidden in very close place, actually not hidden, just overlooked.

What is not part of our direct experience is just a concept. And we align with reality and navigate the experience by examining what is true, what is known for sure. When in that examination beliefs and concepts are recognized and discarded perception changes and so the experiencing. But not by wanting it to change, not by fighting what is, but just by looking for what is already truth. By abandoning requirement from life to has some special meaning, by leaving the expectations we picked up somehow, somewhere, space opens up for something new. And of course always and only, here and now.

Now, if you can relax for a moment in here and now, what do you say: Is it possible that there is anything else than this what is right now? Is there a “there”, or it is just here and just now?

[tek]

Is it possible that there is anything else than this what is right now?

Maybe. But I wouldn't know about it, because I only know this now.

Is there a “there”, or it is just here and just now?

Again, maybe. For me, though, there is always here and now.

If you say that there is only this experience, then death is certain then. Because experience is dependent on the body, and the body will die. Experience is not eternal and unchangeable.

[Eloratea]

For me, though, there is always here and now.

Exactly.

If you say that there is only this experience, then death is certain then. Because experience is dependent on the body, and the body will die.

This is an assumption. Body is a part of the experience now, actual tool in experiencing, but experience might as well continue some other way, with some other tool...

Experience is not eternal

Also an assumption. You don't have experiences of not aliveness; Just of aliveness, here and now, as you said :)