A Critique of "Living in the Moment"

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I'm curious what you mean by "control life". I'm fairly certain people are able to judge, refer, infer and act accordingly, and in the process direct their lives in this manner.

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I'm curious what you mean by "control life". I'm fairly certain people are able to judge, refer, infer and act accordingly, and in the process direct their lives in this manner.

See you don't see that there is only this moment. You think there are separate things all having control but it is one thing - it is just happening.
Life is happening - no one is separate - there is nothing individual. 'Individual' is a concept.

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

That is what bothers me. Why make a principle out of something we all do anyways? It's like saying we should pump blood through our veins, or that we should grow old. There is no reason to promote it as a doctrine or a way of life or a philosophy.

The idea is to be selfless. This is all tied in with the "ego is bad" doctrines.
It is ego, or self concept, which is made up of past memories, and future intents and motivations.
It is what separates "you" and "me".
That is the part that is being encouraged to be denied.
Look up brainwashing techniques, and the step which is "destruction of ego".

reply to post by Itisnowagain

See you don't see that there is only this moment. You think there are separate things all having control but it is one thing - it is just happening.
Life is happening - no one is separate - there is nothing individual. 'Individual' is a concept.

So is the moment. So is your conception of the moment and your reality. "Life is happening". Concepts. Separation. Individualization.

I accept that language isn't a one to one ration with reality. However, in reality we name things, utilize those names and talk about them – like what you are doing. Us seeing things as separate and individual occurs in this "moment".

Originally posted by Bluesma
My position is this-
The state of consciousness which is described by practitioners of "living in the moment"
(such as those often refer to by Itisnowagain, the inspiration of the OP)

Refer to a state of consciousness often catagorized as a "thought stopping" technique.
It is one of many, which include meditation, hypnosis, methods involving sleep deprivation, repetative exercise, hunger....

No one can practice staying in the now. The videos I post are not pointing to a 'concept' or teaching any technique.
However, if one is lost in concepts - one cannot see the non conceptual.

I admire anybody who wants to know something instead of simply accepting paradigms and dogmas. It's a perfectly good question.

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Bluesma

 

I was thinking—what kind of moments would one practice this "thought stopping"? When one is bored? When one is alone? Or all day?

I think "being present in the moment" is not thought-stopping, although perhaps some people use thought-stopping to bring it on. I did do a Zazen (no-mind) meditation for some time -- I now do something completely opposite -- I never thought of that as being present in the moment since what amounts to spacing out ('transcendence of a moment') seems the goal in that.

Being present in the moment in a Zen sense is a complete focus-and-experience of a given thing, losing yourself in it utterly. Perhaps there is more than one way of going about this "being present in the moment" but if so, I'd expect they might be fairly different experiences. So perhaps there's more than one answer in that case.

I am having difficulties thinking about where this "presence" becomes useful. ... I don't see a problem with it at all—but as a doctrine?

Well I am not religious in any existing religion, and I know there are religions that do kind of have this in their doctrine, so I can't speak to those or their reasoning.

I have been exposed to some metaphysical material that suggests it though (e.g. the Seth materials of Jane Roberts). In that case, the idea -- and obviously this is woo and theoretical, I cannot claim it's true, only that this is the basis -- is:

That our experience of reality is in fact subjective, reality being a sort of nexus-experience between all-that-is and the individual; I add this because you kind of must have this element in place for the rest to make sense;

That our focus and emotions (particularly in combination) affect the manifestation of our reality;

That the body is a very strong source of manifesting-power inside that reality;

That a natural body-focus is "within time" as biological creatures inside this (subjective) focus-reality;

That when you match your body-focus and your mental-focus moment in the NOW, particularly if you also have emotions aligned with that, this combo/alignment is the maximum "power generating amplification of that focus" possible;

and hence, that the thoughts (powered by emotion and amplified by the body) held within the present-moment have more influence upon (subjective) reality.

Note: that does not mean the thoughts must be OF the present moment. Only that the person isn't kind of wandering in daydream but gets very focused in the here-now and then may intentionally focus on something about the past or future.

Now expand that description some because 'thoughts' in this case is an incomplete definition; really "the entirety of self" is what is being projected most strongly; focus-thoughts also, but the self as a whole.

I find it easiest to "ground" in this present-focus when I specifically look at my hands, front and back, and feel the soles of my feet against something. Often the sense of "I" ranges from not even body-centered (daydreams for example) to only barely body-centered (like not paying much attention), but focusing on and feeling the hands and feet often seems to put the 'sense of self' rather solidly 'in my body / behind the eyes'.

Whether that works for others I don't know. And as noted perhaps there are other versions of it all.

Over the last ~22 years, I've been in more of a vaguely-jungian model than anything -- more psychological than spiritual you might say, it simply morphed into that experientially (to my surprise) eventually -- and the experience of "convenient coincidence" -- a form of "synchronicity" -- for me has always seemed to become far more common when I am making a point to "be present" (as described) far more often.

In fact when I start getting that "death by a million papercuts" reality experience -- where so many little things are irritating, so many little things going wrong or not working or just being so 'hard' -- I observe to myself that I probably need to be more present, and a little effort in that direction (doesn't take much) tends to result in "reality being smoother" by which I mean, things are just better.

It is possible that this has some positive physiological effect on the body, and that the side-effects of this (e.g. feeling better) are misinterpreted or projected upon the sense of life as a whole (e.g. reality) when maybe they're more individual (just oneself). Not sure.

But the bottom line is mostly the idea that "the point of power is in the NOW." That the more present one fully is in the now, the more influence "their self" has upon the "experience" which they'd call "reality," compared to what might be you could say a sort of set of defaults.

reply to post by Bluesma

The idea is to be selfless. This is all tied in with the "ego is bad" doctrines.
It is ego, or self concept, which is made up of past memories, and future intents and motivations.
It is what separates "you" and "me".
That is the part that is being encouraged to be denied.
Look up brainwashing techniques, and the step which is "destruction of ego".

Maybe so. I think such desires are futile, in my opinion. One can only become completely selfless in death. Even desiring to become selfless is selfish.

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
I accept that language isn't a one to one ration with reality. However, in reality we name things, utilize those names and talk about them – like what you are doing. Us seeing things as separate and individual occurs in this "moment".

All concepts arise in the non conceptual but the non conceptual is missed because the concepts lead one astray.

No You and No Me - Just the Loving Awareness in Which All Appears.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

However, if one is lost in concepts - one cannot see the non conceptual.

Actually, we do the moment we open our eyes. Even when one is thinking he can't help but notice that he is existing. The very act of thinking is non-conceptual.

Originally posted by Bluesma
This is all tied in with the "ego is bad" doctrines.

Ego or false self is an illusion. It is who you think you are. No one else will ever think you are the same as you think you are.
What are you right now without the story of you?

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

However, if one is lost in concepts - one cannot see the non conceptual.

Actually, we do the moment we open our eyes. Even when one is thinking he can't help but notice that he is existing. The very act of thinking is non-conceptual.

Thinking is conceptual. All words are concepts and they tie together to make ideas and beliefs which are also concepts.
You are - I agree with that but as what? Are you a thought? An idea? A story gathered over time?
1.bp.blogspot.com...

So is your conception of the moment and your reality. "Life is happening". Concepts. Separation. Individualization.

I didn't say what you're responding to, so I'm not sure what they meant, but I think the problem with "talking about anything" is that it is, inherently, "philosophy." The words we must use have a certain model, but that doesn't mean every thing which 'is' has the same limitations as our words.

Living in the moment is almost the opposite of philosophy. To think 'about' anything is to separate oneself from it.

I said in a previous post that one example of being present in the moment is when you are so utterly absorbed in doing something you lose all track of time.

Children tend to be very present in the moment naturally. Adults (and the more intellectual, rational, etc. the moreso) tend not to be, in part because they are often thinking about living rather than living-as-a-verb (living vs. existing).

I apologize that I think I'm doing a poor job explaining this. I have never tried to talk or write about it before, which has made me realize how difficult it is to get across without getting lost in the words.

So is your conception of the moment and your reality. "Life is happening". Concepts. Separation. Individualization.

Life is happening but it is not happening to anyone - life is single and it is happening as one movement.
The ocean is waving.
4.bp.blogspot.com...

And the trees bend with the wind, otherwise they break.
People tend to live in the head, and miss the physical reality in which one lives if they focus only on the mind.
If we do that, our feet stumble on earth.

Certain masters so i've heared, concentrate in the higher chakras through negating the world around them.
Is that a healthy thing to do? It is important to breath the joy of life, to mate and have children, to eat and interact with the world around us, don't waste it on a mind thing, our lifespan is short.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Bluesma
This is all tied in with the "ego is bad" doctrines.

Ego or false self is an illusion. It is who you think you are. No one else will ever think you are the same as you think you are.
What are you right now without the story of you?

I am familiar with all this dance around to nowhere.
The denial of the physical body, and all it's sensorial experiences, memories, and drives as having any value, importance, or even existence. You know already that I am not looking to a fugue from physicality, from the experience in individual existence, from sensorial experience, so there's no use in trying to indoctrinate me.

I have acknowledged value to your choice of experience, and do not intend to get in the way of it or change you.
I would appreciate if you could afford me and my choices the same respect. Is that possible?

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Bluesma
This is all tied in with the "ego is bad" doctrines.

Ego or false self is an illusion. It is who you think you are. No one else will ever think you are the same as you think you are.
What are you right now without the story of you?

I am familiar with all this dance around to nowhere.
The denial of the physical body, and all it's sensorial experiences, memories, and drives as having any value, importance, or even existence. You know already that I am not looking to a fugue from physicality, from the experience in individual existence, from sensorial experience, so there's no use in trying to indoctrinate me.

I am not trying to indoctrinate anyone.
However I will deny ignorance as this site is all about denying ignorance.

Please stop misinterpreting what I write. I do not deny the physical body or sensual experience.