A Critique of "Living in the Moment"

Itisnowagain

Bluesma
My reason for not making such a choice is that when you do that (a friend of mine once called that "hollow bones"- isn't that a nice imagery? ) then other ego's can use you as a vehicle for their thoughts.

Like being a carrier of a virus, I feel it is irresponsible of me to allow all thoughts to be put into me, and to give birth through me, into the world and others.

When one knows oneself as emptiness nothing sticks.
I know what I am so I have no worries about being contaminated.

The sky is not harmed by any cloud.

Very nice- for you. Like I said, my concern would be for others. There are carriers of deadly viruses, that do not have symptoms, and yet cause others to fall sick or die.
There are carriers of memes that can do various sorts of damage to others, without feeling any sort of damage themselves.
But like I said, I get it. You don't acknowledge the existence of others, so what happens to them and your part in that is not of concern to you. I just do not feel the same. So we make different choices.

Bluesma

Itisnowagain

Bluesma
My reason for not making such a choice is that when you do that (a friend of mine once called that "hollow bones"- isn't that a nice imagery? ) then other ego's can use you as a vehicle for their thoughts.

Like being a carrier of a virus, I feel it is irresponsible of me to allow all thoughts to be put into me, and to give birth through me, into the world and others.

When one knows oneself as emptiness nothing sticks.
I know what I am so I have no worries about being contaminated.

The sky is not harmed by any cloud.

Very nice- for you. Like I said, my concern would be for others. There are carriers of deadly viruses, that do not have symptoms, and yet cause others to fall sick or die.
There are carriers of memes that can do various sorts of damage to others, without feeling any sort of damage themselves.
But like I said, I get it. You don't acknowledge the existence of others, so what happens to them and your part in that is not of concern to you. I just do not feel the same. So we make different choices.

The believed in individual is nothing but fear. That fear spills out and contaminates all that surrounds it so it lives in fear.
When one realizes it is one, that there is nothing separate, then love is the condition and it spills out.
Really there is no in or out.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


We can become whole, an individual, but as a fragment we simply cannot become 'the' whole.
This again is the point i was trying to make in the previous conversation we had.
No matter how enlightened one is, one lives in a world with billions of unenlightened people.
That does not mean one lives in fear, but it does mean there is imminent danger around the corner every moment of the day.
That is our reality.
This is why i stated, it is either complete or totally absent.

With whole i mean, healthy, sane, not fragmented, this of course is a mental state.
With the whole i mean, humanity, humanity is not one, humans are separated but related.

earthling42
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

We can become whole, an individual, but as a fragment we simply cannot become 'the' whole.
This again is the point i was trying to make in the previous conversation we had.
No matter how enlightened one is, one lives in a world with billions of unenlightened people.
That does not mean one lives in fear, but it does mean there is imminent danger around the corner every moment of the day.
That is our reality.

That is how one that is divided will see it.
Oneness plays hide and seek. If it is seeking then it is still hiding.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Instead of your conclusions, is it possible to really have a conversation?

Let's begin with individual, why do you think an individual is divided?

edit
That is to fast, let's first ask, what is an individual?

earthling42
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Instead of your conclusions, is it possible to really have a conversation?

Let's begin with individual, why do you think an individual is divided?

There is only what is happening but there seems to be something separate judging it. This 'seemingly' divided thing speaks and tells stories of other than what is.

There is a dream of separation but this is one thing happening - no one is doing it because there is just what is happening.

Thoughts/words arise in you and it appears that there is a you separate to all that is. Thinking thinks it can control what is and gets frustrated because it does not yet realize that there is no control as all is just arising.

earthling42

That is to fast, let's first ask, what is an individual?

edit on 19-9-2013 by earthling42 because: (no reason given)

'Individual' is a concept.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Well ok, oneness is also a concept

reply to post by Itisnowagain


In the physical world, that separation is not a thought but real.
That is why we can bump into a tree, or communicate with others.
Of course life is happening, it flows, but we are not the flow itself, we are however in the flow.
So there is not really a separation from life.

How can we be separated from life? through a mindset? that is pure thoughts of being separated while in fact we are not separated from it, don't you think?

NiNjABackflip
reply to post by BDBinc

 

Do you have to think about it, is thinking what stops you from walking off a cliff?
Doesn't love keep you from jumping into traffic yourself.
All the love in the world would protect that child (or not protect its body ).I did not tell you and cannot tell you what action would be taken in an imaginary story.

I am being knowing loving, my love is not limited and I do not need to think that I make informed decisions, when I feel love I do not need to THINK about it. Do you love your children or do you need to think about it and make an "informed decision" before you feel/know it?

Then why wouldn't the child's own love stop him from running into traffic? How would "love" help him in that instance? Is a child not capable of love? Of course not; it is because he is uninformed, and because "love" isn't capable of anything, as there is no substance, no thing called love. We are not automatons acting without decision, thought and foresight. It's because I understand and have thought about the repercussions of walking off a cliff, that I do not walk off a cliff.

You would save the child because you are able to infer what would happen if he walked into traffic. The child walks into traffic because he is unable to infer what would happen if he walked into traffic. Your supposed love is merely an afterthought, likely spoken to make one sound morally superior.

This is an imaginary story you are caught up in, it can unfold/end as you want. I am not telling you, or arguing with you, about what happens in your purely imaginary story about a child crossing a busy road.

You can now see that it is understanding(not thinking) that stops you from walking off a cliff.
Love is never an after thought and I do not claim to be superior to you.

reply to post by BDBinc

This is an imaginary story you are caught up in, it can unfold/end as you want. I am not telling you, or arguing with you, about what happens in your purely imaginary story about a child crossing a busy road.

it was your story actually. You thought of it and imagined it yourself. It wasn't me that imagined love saving a child. If you cannot argue it or defend your ideas any further, then they are completely suspect.

Bluesma

BDBinc

Witch law of physics determines that we are ALWAYS focused on the present, that we can not have restless minds that focus on the past and imagine the future and miss the presence of being alive now.

I assume you mean "which"? I don't know if you are trying to be funny, or simply cannot think in the most down to earth literal terms- I repeated TWICE- I was refering to "being" as in a physical presence.

If you can find any evidence that time travel has been made possible, then we'll analyze that. But so far, objects and people are always in the present.

I have also comprehended and agreed multiple times that the focus of ones mind, however, can be upon past or future, and I understand you are using the the terms "being in the present" to refer to that.

In the same way "Don't go there" can mean for you "don't think about that", for very physically grounded people it means literally- "do not walk or move into that particular space".

That is being grounded in the NOW. Being grounded in the now means things like - I am feeling a craving for something right now. I feel it, I consider whether the thing I am craving is good for me, available, and I decide whether to indulge that craving or not. Right now.

The "run away mind " will focus instead on the associations that arise with the craving, from the past. What does it remind them of? When did this last happen? Whose fault is it? Does it mean I am a bad person? Or does it mean someone else is? Is it very "enlightened" to have such a craving, or not? What would others think if they knew about my craving? How do I judge myself, morally, for this craving?

and on and on, while the actual decision and action to this sensation still has not been attended to yet and resolved.

(I cant believe you asked what I meant by a "run away mind" when you just used the term "restless mind" to describe this and acknowledged it happens- are the terms that dissimilar to you??? )

A person who tends to do that might be able to ground better by saying to themselves outloud, "I am in the present", to help them re-focus their thoughts right now on what they are feeling and what they shall choose to do in response.

(but their physical being, however remains in the present, as it always was)

I have not heard of your search to disengage from the physical form which you think is what causes all the problems of identification with thought therefore creating all the need for disengaging from the( mental) ego.

It is a very common discourse amongst spiritual seekers- the idea that one is NOT their body, and that all identification with their physical form is "ego"- a false idea of self, that is best ascended if one wishes to know "who they are".
I am surprised you have never heard of this conceptualization, considering your focus of interest in such subjects.
(I am being sarcastic- you know this claim if course, and I am not sure why you pretend otherwise)

Intent/desires:
a)Setting goals doesn't make experience possible.
b)Without intent/desires experience is not limited to gray, formless timelessness.
c) Intent/desires do not suddenly brings out colors and contrasts and interactions between separate beings and forms, this does not make for wider experiences.

Then we simply disagree and do not experience the same thing.

edit on 19-9-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

You digress as you now trying interpret what "Don't go there" or "don't think about that", can mean for very physically grounded people, how do you know that it means literally- "do not walk or move into that particular space".? However many ways people interpret what " Don't go there" means has no bearing on how they feel the moment.
We are not disagreeing that people can misunderstand.

Being physical is not being grounded in the NOW.
Being grounded in the now doesn't mean things like - I am feeling a craving for something right now. I feel it, I consider whether the thing I am craving is good for me, available, and I decide whether to indulge that craving or not and on and on.
The "run away mind "/restless mind .
This "grounding" is actually what you call thinking " saying to themselves outloud, "I am in the present", to help them re-focus their thoughts right now on what they are feeling and what they shall choose to do in response") is not necessary to be fully present in the now.

You said

Bluesma " I wonder if the search to disengage from the physical form is what causes all the problems of identification with thought? (therefore creating all the need for disengaging from the mental ego?)"

And I have never heard of this conceptualization, this is the first time I have heard of a mental ego.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

It was another posters story not mine read your thread.

TheConstruKctionofLight




I reflect and see my young child attempting to cross the street unsupervised in peak hour traffic,
Do I suffer more or less by ignoring projecting the future outcome to intervene and stop him approaching the traffic, like a lion I hesitate and think of the damage that will cause him, then I can reflect imagine and choose whether to allow my action to stop him (preservation of his-self and preservation of my lineage progeny).
Or I can allow it to cross and let fate take its course. After al its his fate, and I suffer for a long time at the death of my loved one? A pain I have seen (through empathy of others that have undergone this) that I imagine (yes, I know to imagine amplifies suffering)

reply to post by BDBinc


It was you that I quoted and replied to.

earthling42
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Well ok, oneness is also a concept

Where and when do all concepts arise and what is knowing them?

reply to post by earthling42

earthling42
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

In the physical world, that separation is not a thought but real.

So there is not really a separation from life.

earthling42
How can we be separated from life? through a mindset? that is pure thoughts of being separated while in fact we are not separated from it, don't you think?

There is no one separate to life - there is just life.
It is thought which speaks (the speaking mind) that makes it appear as if there is something other than this ever present aliveness.

BDBinc

You digress as you now trying interpret what "Don't go there" or "don't think about that", can mean for very physically grounded people, how do you know that it means literally- "do not walk or move into that particular space".?

I did not "digress"
It was trying to give another example of language used in physical terms- and in physicality and matter- time and space. Actual literal objects that exist in specific points of time and space.
That is what I was originally talking about with someone else when you came in and questioned the statement.
I don't think that could be said any more clearly. It was just trying another approach. I guess it is impossible- you do not wish to acknowledge physical existence in this conversation.
But this is the key to your lack of understanding of my comment that "we are always in the present and cannot be other wise." and that this is obvious and a given to some people. I will not try further to help you understand that.

Being physical is not being grounded in the NOW.
Being grounded in the now doesn't mean things like - I am feeling a craving for something right now. I feel it, I consider whether the thing I am craving is good for me, available, and I decide whether to indulge that craving or not and on and on.

Well, my opinion is that that is exactly what being "grounded" is. I see you have a different opinion. You have that right.

-I will point out that the "on and on" you added substituted "making a choice and taking action" as I described. That is an essential part of being grounded in my view. (and I am beginning to suspect you took it out for exactly that reason).

This "grounding" is actually what you call thinking " saying to themselves outloud, "I am in the present", to help them re-focus their thoughts right now on what they are feeling and what they shall choose to do in response") is not necessary to be fully present in the now.

That is one technique of "grounding"- a technique to aid one in becoming grounded. It is not necessary- there are other techniques that could be used as well.

And I have never heard of this conceptualization, this is the first time I have heard of a mental ego.

Wow- then you can learn more about from many of the posters on this site! Itisnowagain just posted the statement that "individual is a concept" (if I got the wording correct, I will go back and check).

It is a very common belief- that ego is a set of ideas on what one is as an individual. It is even the base of psychology and psychoanalysis. Though those schools of thought stop at the mental concept of self and do not make claim to anything "higher" existing (as even the Super Ego is a mental concept), whilst many spiritual thought systems will continue on to a claim of a self which is not physical, nor mental.

Itisnowagain

Bluesma
My reason for not making such a choice is that when you do that (a friend of mine once called that "hollow bones"- isn't that a nice imagery? ) then other ego's can use you as a vehicle for their thoughts.

Like being a carrier of a virus, I feel it is irresponsible of me to allow all thoughts to be put into me, and to give birth through me, into the world and others.

When one knows oneself as emptiness nothing sticks.
I know what I am so I have no worries about being contaminated.

The sky is not harmed by any cloud.

Empty it can only be filled and displaced somewhere else, once filled. It is a polar state of duality, an is or is not of perception, it rejects all that enters and ultimately nihilist. It is better to be like water in your awakening, It is accepting and makes room for whatever enters, it fills any situation like a container, when sediment of mind is stirred up in it... it will settle back to clarity... if the sky clung to emptiness, the cloud would bring sky suffering having entered in it.