Walker wrote:“I think, therefore I am.”
This implies that existence requires relationship, or duality. ...
For sure, a body with senses in an external world for example but not sure if 'existence ' itself needs an other.
And, it’s true. In the particular statement, the relationship is between awareness and thought, which is dualistic, because it is a relationship. ...
But is it two separate entities, I doubt it as it's all happening in the one body.
The only way this works is if “I am,” is not the body. ...
Not sure what you mean here, you mean that there is some non-embodied 'I' floating about somewhere without a body?
Consider the implications of non-conceptual, sensory-based meditation that leads to no-thought, which is the purpose of meditation. ...
And how does 'it' get there, by training the body to not notice itself.
In such a situation, the body is, but “I am” is not. “I am” does not exist without thought and only subsequently infers, through clues such as a slept-in bed (for deep sleep), or the passage of time and memory of how continuity of narrative fills in the unaccounted-for portions (for meditation), that the body did in fact exist in the past, when “I am” did not.
But that's not really the case is it, as what is actually happening is that first one puts the body in abeyance which tends to lead to the thought that it's the body that is the 'I' and the 'I' is a construct from the body and probably or maybe language. I do think we might be agreeing here but maybe not.