Hi Vivien thank you for the inquiries, so helpful. I was able to see an assumption about being “behind” the field of experience, and also understand that it’s not about discovering that I don’t exist at all (my confusion was due to all these concepts in my head from previous years of reading different teachings!). But rather that “the I” doesn’t.
Well, if there is nothing separate then how is it possible that 'there are shapes of this IN FRONT OF ME'?
Are you the body?
Is the body the experiencer?
This took a lot of looking to investigate why “in front of me” was the assumption. The sense was not coming from the body, nor feeling as if I was inside the body. So I am not the body, the body is not the experiencer - the body shapes and sensations are included in the field of experience along with everything else.
This view of things appearing here is seen like a painting or movie scene, and there was an assumption that experiencing was happening from behind it, but also including it all (as experiencing IS everything, there’s no thing other than experiencing, i.e. whatever is known through the senses).
So it was an assumption that experiencing was like a camera projecting and forming everything in front of it. With repeated looking, that went away - everything is simply “here”. I would describe my computer as being “in front of me”, as it’s in front of my body and seems the only way to communicate. But this whole field of experience - that is not in front of me!
The body's senses are 'used' or needed for the experience, but is the body itself aware of or know of the experience?
No, the body isn’t aware of anything. The body is one part of experience - there is awareness of parts of the body, but that awareness does not come from the body.
Just like a camera is needed to take a picture, but is the camera aware of or sees the picture?
Or a microphone hears the sound?
Similarly, does the body know about the experience? Or the body itself is just AN experience or part of experience?
The body is simply experienced. In conventional reality, the body is like a tool used to sense the ‘outside world’ - like a camera recording an image, or a microphone picking up sound. But in direct experience, the body is shapes and sensations, and there is no ‘outside world’ that it interacts with; everything is experienced together.
Do you want to get to the conclusion of 'I don't exist'? Don't you know this experience? How could you not exist if you are aware of this sentence, right now?
Yes I am aware of this sentence, I exist! Yes in my past years of consuming teachings, I heard variations of “you don’t exist”, including on the LU app / audios, but also from many other teachers. And this was the part that brought up resistance, for how could I not exist if I am hearing those words? I see now on the LU app that “you” is in quotation marks, which makes all the difference!
I DO not exist is completely different to the I DOES not exist. So, the “I” that perceives itself to be small, finite and separate is a particular thought system, a particular form of narrative which is the I that doesn’t exist. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t exist. Something clearly exist, you are aware don’t you?
Yes, I am aware, it is self-evident, requires no thought. Whereas the “I” with a past and future and do-ership, that “I” does not exist in real life, only in thought. “I” can’t be found anywhere in real life. But “aware” is proven by the very fact of everything appearing in real life.
The question is not whether I exist, but AS WHAT do I exist?
Do I exist as a separate entity, a body-mind, that is the thinker, doer, feeler, experiencer?
I am not sure as what, but not the thinker - thoughts arise on their own, the feeling of “thinker” only appears with thought, so in between thoughts there is no thinker, yet I am still here.
I am not the doer, these actions are just happening.
I am not the feeler or experiencer, I don’t find a noun, a constant solid thing, called experiencer. The concept of an experiencer would require thought. There is experiencing, for sure.
And the body-mind, that is something also experienced - and I am not the one controlling this body shape or thoughts. So I do not exist as that. In conventional reality, this body-mind is where consciousness is housed, but that requires thought. And also, even in conventional reality, free will / do-ership can’t be proven.
That’s another question if there is a need for an identity. A statement that “I am this or that”, or it’s enough just to exist, just to be without any definition, without identity?
Yes, I exist is enough!
There is beingness, there is existence, but is it personal?
Does it have an identity?
Does it have a location?
Not personal - there is being here, this is sensed most clearly with eyes closed with no sounds, in between heartbeats, there is like a void, and I am still very much here. But not as a thing. No identity. No location. Just, “am”. Not even “I am” - don’t need the “I”, it’s meaningless, just “Am”.
And the more there is just “am”ness, it becomes “IS”.
Not personal. Is. Existence is!
Is it finite belonging to the body, or being located in the body?
“Is” is not finite, not belonging to the body, or located anywhere - not limited . It’s the first time I have had a glimpse of this but still subtle, spent so many years looking in the wrong direction, getting used to trusting my experience!
Thank you so much,
Natasha
