A Critique of "Living in the Moment"

BigBrotherDarkness

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.

Where would this 'somewhere else' be?

BigBrotherDarkness
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.

How can the sky cling to emptiness?
The sky is ever present and clouds form in the sky.
The clouds appear to be something and the sky is the 'space' (emptiness) the clouds appear in.

Emptiness is full of what is appearing.
Emptiness is form.

One has to recognize oneself as the emptiness (which is just perceiving not controlling or doing). If one identifies with the appearance then one will be lost in concepts.

The clouds move in the sky, which never moves. Clouds come and go whereas the sky has to be there prior to any cloud forming and remains after a cloud has disappeared. Clouds are not made of anything other than what the sky is made of.

The sky and the clouds are one.

Bluesma

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.

edit on 20-9-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

I've never before heard the ego called a Mental Ego.

You do digress. Language is often misunderstood or interpreted differently, the different ways to interpret “Don’t go there” doesn’t support in ant way that people that are “very physical” are always aware of the present moment. “Very physical” people just like other people get caught up in thoughts, thoughts of cravings and fear.

That you are always aware of the present moment is not a given and I gave the example of how when some people have panic attacks they are not aware of the present moment.

Thinking about your cravings and how to get them is not being focused on the moment it is being focused on thoughts of cravings.

The last techniques you mention to ground yourself in the thoughts appearing now, the thoughts (not the awareness of the moment).

Bluesma

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.

What is 'physical' is here and now (what is appearing is what can be seen, heard and sensed - physical reality). If you can acknowledge that you are never anything but present then why assume there is time and space where 'actual literal objects that exist in specific points of time and space'?

There seems to be an assumption that another time and place exists (where 'actual objects exist in specific points in time and space'). Is this what you consider 'physical existence'?
Language implies that there is time and space other than what is here - language builds a world that does not actually exist.

It is literally language that makes believe there is something other than what is happening. The mind chats away talking about other times and places - the mind cannot ever speak about what is really happening - who could possibly say (in words/concepts) what this life is? When words and language have been learned they build an abstract world - most live in the abstract world language has built.
When the words and concepts have been seen for what they are then the world is destroyed and what is will be revealed - the deaf will hear and the blind will see without preconceived concepts. If a preconceived idea arises then that will also be seen. All concepts are seen to be arising presently.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What is 'physical' is here and now (what is appearing is what can be seen, heard and sensed - physical reality). If you can acknowledge that you are never anything but present then why assume there is time and space where 'actual literal objects that exist in specific points of time and space'?

There seems to be an assumption that another time and place exists (where 'actual objects exist in specific points in time and space'). Is this what you consider 'physical existence'?
Language implies that there is time and space other than what is here - language builds a world that does not actually exist.

It is literally language that makes believe there is something other than what is happening. The mind chats away talking about other times and places - the mind cannot ever speak about what is really happening - who could possibly say (in words/concepts) what this life is? When words and language have been learned they build an abstract world - most live in the abstract world language has built.
When the words and concepts have been seen for what they are then the world is destroyed and what is will be revealed - the deaf will hear and the blind will see without preconceived concepts. If a preconceived idea arises then that will also be seen. All concepts are seen to be arising presently.

Fine post; this is something we can agree upon. Those who don't understand language put unnecessary faith in it, almost endowing them with supernatural powers (ie. words such as "God", "freedom", "success" people will kill for), giving words and concepts free reign to tyrannize over the one thinking of, and in control of, those words. I would have to agree with you that idealism such as this is the root cause of worry, and worse, the root cause of unnecessary violence, racism, fundamentalism, bullying, and so on.

I also agree that the understanding of language, and of the power we too often give it, immediately negates most of the control that words and concepts and grammar have over us. I think we share a common enemy in this respect.

I cannot deny that focusing on the sensual experience is helpful in this regard, and that some might see it as a technique to reaffirm what is truly important: the world and everything in it. As a sensualist myself, I exist "in the now", concerned with what is concrete, and I love and value the highest what is concrete. However, from this foundation of values, I have arrived at a method that is a little different.

I love language too much. From language, in its grand sense (what I see as not just a tool of communication, but a biological extension of thought), I can create what I need to create. I will protect it. I cannot simply throw it under the bus because I think it causes me worry, as I would only be throwing a part of myself under the bus. Language hasn't built these worlds, we have. It is only me that causes me to worry. No concept or ideal has that power—even if it is spoken in the sweetest voice and verse.

The method that has worked for me personally is to learn to use language rather than negate it. I read and write every day. I write poetry and prose and fiction. I study rhetoric and linguistics. Although this may be overboard, it is because I love language—because I find it a beautiful manifestation within my sensual experience, my thoughts manifested into art—that I do so.

Just as words and rhetoric can be used to cause worry, stress, jealousy, envy etc., they can be used to cause joy, laughter, song, comfort, praise, arousal and gratitude. They can change minds, which essentially changes the way one decides to interact. Your words flow through my mind as I read them, and I can, in a strange way, see what you're thinking. They conjure imagery and thoughts—my imagery and thoughts—but brought about against my will. However, because I think I understand the power of language, I can see it as merely words, merely "another's thoughts" interpreted by me, no supernatural power given.

Simply running from language is, in my opinion, dangerous, as it leaves that power in the hands of those who realize it. My ideal would be that this power is wielded by everyone.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

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

Everyone who has learned about it knows it, you know it.

And now you'll say again, "That is how one that is divided will see it."

But as i stated previously, we are an individual, at least if one is whole.

One puzzle piece is not the whole puzzle, it consists of many who each have their unique place, humanity consists of 7 billion human beings.

What you advocate is that there is a false self (ego) and that is true, but it is also true that everyone is a unique self.
To give a little example, if a car drives towards you, you'll move instinctively to avoid being run over by that car without thinking.
The self is intelligence, self protective, and constantly learning how to survive which will be passed on from old to young.

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.

A bit more nuance is welcome here, thinking is not a problem and it does not mean one is divided or away from the present.

earthling42
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

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

Everyone who has learned about it knows it, you know it.

Where do and when do all concepts arise?
Did you have to learn the answer?
Do you know the answer?

What answer would 'everyone' who knows it give?

BDBinc
You do digress.

Bull. Once again, I was illustrating the difference between literal language and figurative language, because you do not seem to grasp that my statement that one exists in the present is literally a given and unquestionable, always, for everyone.

That you are always aware of the present moment is not a given

Stop twisting what I said- it is not useful in any way for communication. Literal speech is refering to physical and material objects in specific points of space and time,- NOT states of awareness.

I NEVER made ANY comment which stated that awareness remains always in the present, with the physical body and environment - I acknowledged many times that mind wanders sometimes. (remember? You called that a "restless mind" I called it a "runaway mind"- same phenomena different terminology? ).

Everything you answer is a twisting of what I wrote, and though I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt at first and respond as if it was a "honest mistake" on your part, after so many repetitions and corrections, I am now pretty confident that you are doing this consciously and quite purposefully.

If you really had any worthwhile counter argument than you wouldn't have to play such games. So I won't waste any more time with this.

Itisnowagain

What is 'physical' is here and now (what is appearing is what can be seen, heard and sensed - physical reality). If you can acknowledge that you are never anything but present then why assume there is time and space where 'actual literal objects that exist in specific points of time and space'?

With language, we can distinguish between the physical experience and the subjective nature of experience.

Though the question of whether man can actually perceive the "true" objective nature of reality is not resolved yet, we can, however communicate certain sensual informations that remain in common for us all, despite whatever subjective characteristics we may each have differing in our perspective.

You and I (and other readers) may all be able to confirm we are seeing written words on a screen - this is an objective reality. Though we may each interpret meanings of those words differently, and have differing memories and associated thoughts arise in conjunction with those words - that is the subjective reality.
(sometimes refered to as the internal reality, personal reality....)

The internal, or subjective reality does not follow the same laws of physics that we can expect and rely upon in the external or objective reality.

Language implies that there is time and space other than what is here - language builds a world that does not actually exist.

Language allows for perceptions to be shared and communicated from one being to another- perceptions of both objective and subjective nature.

It is literally language that makes believe there is something other than what is happening. The mind chats away talking about other times and places - the mind cannot ever speak about what is really happening -

I find it can and does. When I am eating an ice cream cone and my mind says "I am enjoying this ice cream cone!" it is commenting on events happening in the present.

When words and language have been learned they build an abstract world - most live in the abstract world language has built.

I disagree. Without language, there is still an inner subjective world! It existed with my sister who was retarded and could not speak, it exists in animals, and in babies and small children... I think it continues to exist in all people, yet does tend to get "covered" or "hidden" by language.... unless they are used to translating between languages, and gain the habit of subtracting the language in the transition. (why bilingual kids have such an easier time learning even more languages).

This inner reality is not linear, and does not adhere to cause-effect laws. It is more like associations, or groupings, of image, sound, concept, sensual memory and imagination. It also does not distinguish self/other separation. It focuses on movement and process, with very little static form or states.

Bluesma

Though the question of whether man can actually perceive the "true" objective nature of reality is not resolved yet, we can, however communicate certain sensual informations that remain in common for us all, despite whatever subjective characteristics we may each have differing in our perspective.

A true world cannot be resolved but that which 'knows' must be real.
There is a 'space' in which all is known.

The ever present space of awareness allows all to arise and subside.

Words (language) build a construct of the world which is not actually here 'physically' - the 'world' is a mental construct (a concept).

What is being seen or heard or smelled or touched is what I would consider apparent existence. What I am is, is never separate to what is being seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelt. All sensual experience happens now and every thought happens now. Thoughts tell stories of other - other times, other places and other people.
There is only ever what is happening - what is happening is not actually happening to anyone - it is just happening.

Itisnowagain

Bluesma

Though the question of whether man can actually perceive the "true" objective nature of reality is not resolved yet, we can, however communicate certain sensual informations that remain in common for us all, despite whatever subjective characteristics we may each have differing in our perspective.

A true world cannot be resolved but that which 'knows' must be real.
There is a 'space' in which all is known.

The ever present space of awareness allows all to arise and subside.

Words (language) build a construct of the world which is not actually here 'physically' - the 'world' is a mental construct (a concept).

What is being seen or heard or smelled or touched is what I would consider apparent existence. What I am is, is never separate to what is being seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelt. All sensual experience happens now and every thought happens now. Thoughts tell stories of other - other times, other places and other people.
There is only ever what is happening - what is happening is not actually happening to anyone - it is just happening.

Though I experience that on certain levels this is true,
And that from consciousness is thought,
From which is born concepts,
From which is born what you are calling "apparent reality".

A process of "densification", perhaps,
Which creates this "objective" reality in which there are separate objects and individuals,
In different points of space and time, with different perspectives upon that shared reality.

I think it sad that you do not experience thoughts which tell of "self" and "present". (that yours tell only of other). No "I Am" thoughts arise ?

See , at this moment, it is important to me to recognize that your experience differs from mine, because otherwise I would simply have to say this is a lie. It is a falsehood. Because thoughts arise about here and now.

But on this level of reality (the apparent one) I am not you and I can experience things you are not experiencing. This chocolate chip cookie I am chewing, and all the wonderful sensations is an experience very specific right now to me, as an individual.

If you are a parent, and refuse to acknowledge such concepts as different individuals, then as fullness arises in experience, or dryness, or comfort, then there is nothing to do for your baby which is hungry, in a wet diaper, or pained.
This is why traditionally, mystics kept to isolated caves and avoided relationships, reproduction and verbal exchange. A choice to not engage in the apparent physical reality would entail such a choice.

Furthermore, as I have shared with you before, the choice to avoid engagement and cease to use language
(which you'd have to do to really manifest this- you'd have to stop writing on discussion forums, because in doing so, you invalidate the selfless, unseparated state)

would leave the creation of this apparent reality to others.
Nothing wrong with that, if it is what you wish and you are fine with whatever type of world and events us creators choose to densify for us all. But some points of consciousness choose to be creators, to be active instead of passive, forces. Luckily the whole is made up of both passive and active force!

reply to post by Itisnowagain


They arise in the field of knowledge, and are used to communicate.
The word 'concept' has different meanings, here we philosophize and use a consept like 'individual' or 'oneness' to convey our understanding of that concept.
A philosophical consept is an understanding, and philosophy as you know is the love of truth.

Concepts in the form of theoretical ideas are a different matter, they tend to lead us away from reality and are mostly used to alter civilisation, like the economic, political and religious systems.

Bluesma

Itisnowagain

Bluesma

Though the question of whether man can actually perceive the "true" objective nature of reality is not resolved yet, we can, however communicate certain sensual informations that remain in common for us all, despite whatever subjective characteristics we may each have differing in our perspective.

A true world cannot be resolved but that which 'knows' must be real.
There is a 'space' in which all is known.

The ever present space of awareness allows all to arise and subside.

Words (language) build a construct of the world which is not actually here 'physically' - the 'world' is a mental construct (a concept).

What is being seen or heard or smelled or touched is what I would consider apparent existence. What I am is, is never separate to what is being seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelt. All sensual experience happens now and every thought happens now. Thoughts tell stories of other - other times, other places and other people.
There is only ever what is happening - what is happening is not actually happening to anyone - it is just happening.

Though I experience that on certain levels this is true,
And that from consciousness is thought,
From which is born concepts,
From which is born what you are calling "apparent reality".

Apparent reality is what can be seen and heard, smelled and touched - it is what is seen/known to be appearing. Along with what is seen, heard, tasted and touched are words. Words are symbols that arise as apparent reality. But the word 'water' will not ever quench the thirst. Real thirst quenching water is not a concept.

No words or symbols (concepts) are required for seeing and hearing to happen.

'Apparent (appearing) reality' is primarily without concept (abstraction). Babies are born without words or concepts - they can see and hear without thinking (wording/speech mind).

From which is born concepts,
From which is born what you are calling "apparent reality".

'Apparent reality' is not born out of concepts.
'Apparent reality' is non conceptual.

Concepts provide a platform for 'abstract reality' - the mental realm where you have a stage for your dream of separation. You can play in time and space (thinking of somewhere else and somewhere else always now) and be the star of the show. You can act as if you are a person in the world made of time and space.
There is nothing wrong with that - it is the game of pretending to be an individual.

Bluesma
I think it sad that you do not experience thoughts which tell of "self" and "present". (that yours tell only of other). No "I Am" thoughts arise ?

There is no 'other'.
Thoughts arise. Thoughts happen.

The true self cannot be thought about. It hears and sees all thought that arises and knows it is just happening.

Bluesma

BDBinc
You do digress.

Bull. Once again, I was illustrating the difference between literal language and figurative language, because you do not seem to grasp that my statement that one exists in the present is literally a given and unquestionable, always, for everyone.

That you are always aware of the present moment is not a given

Stop twisting what I said- it is not useful in any way for communication. Literal speech is refering to physical and material objects in specific points of space and time,- NOT states of awareness.

I NEVER made ANY comment which stated that awareness remains always in the present, with the physical body and environment - I acknowledged many times that mind wanders sometimes. (remember? You called that a "restless mind" I called it a "runaway mind"- same phenomena different terminology? ).

Everything you answer is a twisting of what I wrote, and though I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt at first and respond as if it was a "honest mistake" on your part, after so many repetitions and corrections, I am now pretty confident that you are doing this consciously and quite purposefully.

If you really had any worthwhile counter argument than you wouldn't have to play such games. So I won't waste any more time with this.

edit on 22-9-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

I am not the one twisting .
You did digress. Even If you (as you now say) were trying to illustrate the difference between literal language and figurative language and what language can refer to . As pointers in an illusion Literal and figurative speech can both refer to physical and material objects in specific points of space and time and try to refer to states of awareness . The nature of words has been explained to you.
Your different interpretations, literally or figuratively, of language by "very physical" people still has no bearing on them being always aware of the present moment .
That you are always aware of the present moment is not a given. Same for people that are "very physical" as they are not "grounded" in awareness of the Now, they still have their focus on desires, cravings and fear).

edit on 22-9-2013 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Your question

What is the 'false' you speak of?

You have answered it yourself

most live in the abstract world language has built.
When the words and concepts have been seen for what they are then the world is destroyed and what is will be revealed.

reply to post by earthling42

I can't remember asking that question - can you please refer me to the page I asked it on?
I would like to see in what context I asked it.

Itisnowagain

BigBrotherDarkness

Empty it can only be filled and displaced somewhere else, once filled.

Where would this 'somewhere else' be?

At an extreme of duality. Emptiness is not the goal, unless your attachment is form. Emptiness is merely an experience that is the opposite of form allowing you to not be attached to form, once experienced... attached to form is an opposite of emptiness an extreme, attached to emptiness is an opposite of form an extreme. The middle avoids both extremes thus bringing balance. Not being attached to either form or emptiness is the goal of the middle way.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


How can the sky cling to emptiness? (How can you unless your mind is clinging to it?)
The sky is ever present and clouds form in the sky. (the sky is impermanent in time it will be gone, the clouds likewise are impermanent)

The clouds appear to be something and the sky is the 'space' (emptiness) the clouds appear in. (you're very strongly attached to this concept and it is deluding you, let it go or calmly abiding in the present will elude you)

Emptiness is full of what is appearing. (emptiness is just emptiness nothing more nothing less)
Emptiness is form. (emptiness is the opposite of form, attached to either is an extreme meditate on one the fetter of the other loosens... similarly; hate never ceases by hate, hate only ceases by love, they are direct opposites extremes and they cancel each other out to become one, stop clinging to the concept of emptiness)

One has to recognize oneself as the emptiness (which is just perceiving not controlling or doing). If one identifies with the appearance then one will be lost in concepts. (you are identifying with emptiness and so you are lost in a concept, of emptiness can you not see this? You think you can recognize and become emptiness... transform into it, you can only experience it the same as experiencing form. form is not self, emptiness is not self)


The clouds move in the sky, which never moves. Clouds come and go whereas the sky has to be there prior to any cloud forming and remains after a cloud has disappeared. Clouds are not made of anything other than what the sky is made of.

The sky and the clouds are one.

Your last one is in reference to the sense sphere of the mind.... sky consciousness, clouds thoughts yes? Consciousness chases thought in the average human mind, unless trained in meditation, where thought is placed by consciousness over and over and over again on an object of meditation. The mind should never be where ever consciousness happens to find it. The consciousness needs the mind as a tool as sharp as a diamond blade and the task is to sharpen it in meditation, to cut all doubts and attachments. Without proper meditation, the consciousness will just chase and judge the contents of mind, identify with the various phenomena found in the mind as the self and cling to it this is mental suffering.

You saw emptiness inside yourself, identified with this emptiness as the true self and now cling to it. "You are now... captain! emptiness with a form being, that transforms when needed by taking the lotus posture" sorry for the dramatics, but thinking you are emptiness in form, or form in emptiness is a delusion. Friend... emptiness is not the self, form is not the self, both together do become one, but they collide like matter and antimatter neither are left as a mental distraction to be attached to on the path, two less extremes to fall into. The duality of emptiness and form fall away when their fetter has been cut. This is as simple as I can explain it as it really is.