Mellowmarsh

There’s awareness of being aware which feels like aliveness. But there’s no awareness or feeling of being dead, or of being unalive. Is that what makes awareness immortal, in that it cannot be aware of having had a beginning or an end? “ It “ being awareness.

Okay thanks for making that clear. I understand that the awareness of thought is the same awareness that is aware of things. Buddhism states that thoughts are things. And that there’s no thing actually there independent of the thought thing. So even the identifier of thought is also a thought thing.

Yes I understand that. But the experience always has to be about the experiencer which must be present for experience to be known. But to talk about a thoughtless experience doesn’t make sense to me because there would be nobody there in the thoughtless experience to tell itself it’s having the thought free experience. But if it makes sense to you, then I’ve no problem with your view, it’s just something I’m not feeling.

Enlightenment is a myth. It’s an idea that has zero information of knowing what an idea is.

So it seems thoughts arise from a thoughtless state. Is what I interpret from your answer. There’s the experience of thoughts arising from a thoughtless state. But I’m not sure the thoughtless state is an actual experience, because there wouldn’t be anyone there in a thoughtless state to tell itself “I am not thinking”

What happens to immortal awareness when the body that is known to immortal awareness dies? And is immortal awareness only experienced when the body is alive? Does immortal awareness require a body to know it is immortal? A body that not only appears to be alive to awareness but can also appear to be unalive as when the body dies, even though the body still remains after its death, the awareness has disappeared. My question is, where has the immortal awareness gone while the dead body still remains?

What experiences immortality without limits?

I mean that the thing that identifies must be the same for anything that is being identified with. I just wanted to come back to the above point for more clarity. When you say the thing that identifies must be the same thing as the thing identified. Can you identify what that thing is exactly, and is this identified “thing” conscious? It’s just that I’m not really sure what you’re showing me here. Thanks.

So does that mean there’s an apparent demand to make what is past and dead to appear as the direct immediacy of the present moment?

Okay. 👍

I am the knowing that cannot be known.

I don’t know. I is known, but not by I

No, thing knows this.

So you existed as an unconsciousness you, until you had the ability to be conscious you?

Identify what is the same as the thought?

This conception is directly known yes in the instance knowing arises, one with the knowing.

Why wasn’t the I known in it’s beginning, in it’s conception?

Describe the thing that’s the same as the thought it identifies with?

The you is known conceptually only. That’s the illusion of knowledge, it can only point to the object of knowing. Are you an object?

Who or what exists when thoughts are not arising?

Then we’re talking about concepts. Concepts are known in their conception but not by the I The I is already known, so the known know nothing. And doesn’t have to know anything. Knowledge belongs to the mind, which is the illusory dream of separation.

Because thoughts are things. And you are not a thought thing, only that which is not a thing can be aware of things, things don’t know anything.

If that’s true it’s because there’s a you present in thoughtless experience that knows it’s having a thoughtless experience. Even though a you is only possible as a thought thing, and not a not thought thing, in this conception. It’s like the concept known as nonduality. Nonduality cannot be a thing known , because nonduality is not a thing.

Again, this is about knowledge and knowing. A tree is known to exist, as a human mental construct, but does the actual tree in and of itself know it exists, can the actual tree tell itself “ I am a tree” ?

Knowing arises and falls in conjunction together in the instant knowing arises, and is known in this conception. If thoughtless experience is not equal to nothing, then it must be something, so what is it, and can you describe your own thoughtless experience , and what it is, in a way that it is not equal to nothing?