A Critique of "Living in the Moment"

from itisnowagain
No one can live in the moment and no one can live outside the moment.
There is no one

This coming from someone. If you are no one, why are you acting like someone?

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


Is he acting or talking, from a position of having known bliss if even momentarily,

I'm enjoying this learning


someone
pron.
An unspecified or unknown person.
n.
A person of importance

dont see this an attack on you but Itisnowagain does not go by the title someone, why introduce the word someone? Alternatively you are attempting to "limit" Itisnowagain to "a someone" Please explain why you used this perhaps

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight

A lion will not attack his own offspring without hesitation, a man who reflects and imagines, would and does do such a things

That was my response to the OP who said lions attack their offspring without hesitation and a man who reflects and imagines has and does attack his our offspring. The whole point of the lion the OP was telling me that man does not attack his offspring as he can imagine and reason, which as we know does not stop family violence.

Its good to get that to suffer comes from the mind dwelling in the past and future
Suffering is wrong use of the mind, pain is of the body needing attention.

If you see a young child who appears to not know how to cross a road safely and is attempting to cross the street unsupervised in peak hour traffic where is the need to suffer or think about it when love allows you to act appropriately without suffering/indecision.

reply to post by

and believe all knowledge comes from the senses (of which I believe thinking is one), so this thinking about the present, or what I am currently sensing is very important to me; it's how I learn. But in order to make sense of what I am sensing, I must think about it

NiNjABackflip
I must think about it...

true, but you also sleep on it, regurgitate it in the morning, see what insights it bought and if it is of no value you move on, after having the subconscious deal with it
detached attention is perhaps something to think about

to go back to your earlier paragraph

"but I would argue that it is that particular thought, and not thoughts in general, that have somehow made their life worse off"

Could be but I think we are talkiing about the constant chatter that goes on in our mind


and from your OP
"We all exist in the current moment; we already “live in the moment” and cannot do otherwise no matter how hard we try. Saying that “we should live in the moment” is about as fundamental as saying “we should exist”."

We exist in the current moment, but are we alive? in this existence of yours in the present. I would suggest by suspending/stopping the illusion of the man made construct of time, we live life more fully


and from your OP
we walk because we have a destination in mind. We can remember something, “the past”, and utilize these memories in our day to day

We also find that the journey is the experience, the destination in mind, the goal, the outcome brings its own problems fears and worries. Its fun when we stop and enjoy the journey

although this wondering happens in the present, this wonderment is maligned as something that will lead a man to stress or worry

from en.wikipedia.org...
"The present (or now) is the time that is associated with the events perceived directly and in the first time"


I find this helpful

www.huffingtonpost.com...
"Detachment, then, consists of second attention. If you put little stock in what it's about, you aren't detached. If you put value on it, detachment increases. Which is to say, you integrate more Being, essence, or the divine into the structure of yourself. The self has an endless capacity to accommodate new things. It may happen, as second attention grows, that the things which dominate first attention--money, sex, family, status, possessions, success--begin to shift down, and eventually the appeal of the transcendent may take you outside material considerations altogether. This would be the state Jesus describes as being in the world but not of it.

For the time being, no one has to pretend that the world is irrelevant or evil. Detachment is a process, not a pretense. And it seems to be a natural process, as one can learn by conversing with mature people who have deeply considered their own lives. The beauty of detachment is that it needn't be a doctrine or a religious dictum. It can be the way your life is going once you contact the inner person who wants more than material desires can bring."

This is because people are irrational, not because they think

And a person (Oppenheimer) using, thinking, thinking, thinking and rational thought spit the atom and washed his hands of it, leaving it up to the military and the government to worry about. His rational thinking led to an irrational decision to put his baby into the hands of others (pandoras box)

I suspect that the biggest destructive disservice to Mankind is the introduction of time as an arbitrary construct. It has allowed the Industrial sector to reduce work value to a $dollar amount.

It sits well with the enforced "schooling hours modern education system" devised by Rockefeller in 1903
grooming students into the 9-5 mentatilty so crucial to his factory/oil industries


I think at the moment I'm Prometheus seeking the fire of the Gods, for some enlightenment. My punishment is that instead of my liver being eaten, my mind is eaten but its ok. Its born anew the next day.
" where each day an eagle, the emblem of Zeus, was sent to feed on his liver, which would then grow back to be eaten again the next day. (In ancient Greece, the liver was thought to be the seat of human emotions.)

Always remember to look on the brighter side of life... Monty Python

from Google
About 319,000,000 results
"the answer to everything is 42"

reply to post by BDBinc

If you see a young child who appears to not know how to cross a road safely and is attempting to cross the street unsupervised in peak hour traffic where is the need to suffer or think about it when love allows you to act appropriately without suffering/indecision

Exactly my thinking...just trying to throw thinking out there...to perhaps...clarify what I think NiNjABackflip is stating in the OP

Itisnowagain

Bluesma

Itisnowagain

Saying 'just believe' or 'stop' is not thought stopping because 'I believe' and 'stop' are thoughts.

The thing is most believe it is them that is thinking - if that were true then one could stop thinking at will and would not have to try to stop thought with techniques.

As the links explained, and as I explained twice, the technique involves consciously substituting a desireable (positive) thought in the place of an undesireable (negative) thought. This "stops" that particular "negative" thought..... or you can say it "transforms" it, if you prefer "substitutes".

I never used a mantra or any technique to find nothingness.
Thoughts are noisy and can be disturbing - they cloud the vision.
No thought (no concepts/words arising) is very peaceful and all is seen clearly.

I am not saying thought never arises, it does, but the thought is seen to be arising in nothing by nothing - the thought is also known to be nothing.
There is no identification with thought anymore so there is no conflict, no struggle- they just blow through.

Each of those sentences are a thought that has come forth out of a body and individual mind.
Granted, I readily accept your claim that you do not willingly and consciously "choose" them, that you have instead chosen to forfeit that ability for your own reasons.

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.

But of course I see that not believing there is any others, or any self, existing wipes out any need for concern about such things. I enjoy the experience of self/other interaction and relation though, so I choose not to deny that.

BDBinc
If say you are in a panic attack , you are thinking about a past experience (the traumatic past) and imagining it is and will be repeated disliking it intensely (and your body reacts) are you fully present in the NOW. No I am afraid being fully present is not a given.Meaning that the mind can be focused on thoughts of past and future, instead of focused on the present.

I got it. As I wrote, you are talking in metaphor. You are talking about the focus of mind- not being in the literal sense.
The interaction you dropped in on was about more down to earth literal statements of facts.
The laws of physics determine that we are ALWAYS in the present. There is no other possibility.

Sometimes I think these sorts of tools are simply created for people who have "run away minds"- that forget they are not their thoughts. They are not grounded in their body.
While they are searching to rise out of their body to avoid the antics of their mind, some people are very grounded in their body and that keeps the mind from straying out of the moment. The very physical people that the intellectuals like to look down on might have the key up their sleeve!

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?) Wouldn't that be an ironic twist??

Setting goals doesn't make experience possible, existence makes it possible.
It is this that makes the appearance of movement possible.

I just wrote on this in another thread. Without intent, experience is limited to gray, formless timelessness.
While incarnated, that means apathy, indifference. There is no suffering, that is for sure. But there is nothing else either. I end up choosing variation of experiences, and intent suddenly brings out colors and contrasts and interactions between separate beings and forms. This makes for wider experiences. That is joyful.

Peace and contentment gets boring eventually!

reply to post by Bluesma


Can you choose the next thought that arises? If you could there would be no need to replace a negative thought with a positive one. It is of course impossible to replace a thought because a thought happens and has happened and it is too late.

If you can choose them then you would also be able to stop them at will - can you stop thought from arising?
Try it and let me know if you are successful.

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight

aha I got it, (we) (I) (them) (us) are god, source, the universe, indestructible, everlasting

There is nothing separate from presence.
Right now you are seeing and knowing an appearance - colour, shapes, sounds, smell etc. You might see (your) hands, a keyboard, walls etc. So presently there is what is appearing to be seen.
Can you see or find what is seeing the appearance?
Remember that thought is also of the appearance.

If one turns ones gaze from all that is appearing to find that which is knowing the appearance one finds absolutely nothing.

That absolutely nothing is what all arises in and from - it is the source.

But if a person goes there the person dies.
It is just an illusion that dies - there was no separate individual person ever - it was just a dream of separation.

A dream can happen presently that there is a person living in time.

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.

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight


Thank you for posting the wiki link about 'the present' - it was a very interesting read.
Here is an extract.

The present in Yoga

In Patanjali Yoga Sutras the first sutra defines Yoga as 'NOW'. By 'Chitta Vrithhi nirodha' (restraining the thought-streams) the present can be experienced. The moment a person thinks, he is recalling his past experience. He will never know the present. Being conscious or being aware is the only way to know the present.

The present in Buddhism

Buddhism and many of its associated paradigms emphasize the importance of living in the present moment — being fully aware of what is happening, and not dwelling on the past or worrying about the future.[7] This does not mean that they encourage hedonism, but merely that constant focus on one's current position in space and time (rather than future considerations, or past reminiscence) will aid one in relieving suffering. They teach that those who live in the present moment are the happiest.[8] A number of meditative techniques aim to help the practiser live in the present moment.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight

dont see this an attack on you but Itisnowagain does not go by the title someone, why introduce the word someone? Alternatively you are attempting to "limit" Itisnowagain to "a someone" Please explain why you used this perhaps

I do not know him/her personally, but I know that he is not no one, because someone is needed to type and think. How is that limiting? If anything, calling oneself "no one" is the limitation, because he is declaring himself as nothing. I see him as more than that in my eyes.

reply to post by BDBinc

If you see a young child who appears to not know how to cross a road safely and is attempting to cross the street unsupervised in peak hour traffic where is the need to suffer or think about it when love allows you to act appropriately without suffering/indecision.

Does love keep you from walking off a cliff? Does love keep you from jumping into traffic yourself? If you hadn't thought about the dangers of traffic, the dangers of getting hit by cars, road safety etc., the child's mental state, not all the love in the world would protect that child. You made an informed decision—something you would not be able to do without thinking.

Also, why would one arbitrarily love something if he has not first thought about it? Do you also love cancer?

Bluesma

BDBinc
TextIf say you are in a panic attack , you are thinking about a past experience (the traumatic past) and imagining it is and will be repeated disliking it intensely (and your body reacts) are you fully present in the NOW. No I am afraid being fully present is not a given.Meaning that the mind can be focused on thoughts of past and future, instead of focused on the present.

I got it. As I wrote, you are talking in metaphor. You are talking about the focus of mind- not being in the literal sense.
The interaction you dropped in on was about more down to earth literal statements of facts.
The laws of physics determine that we are ALWAYS in the present. There is no other possibility.

Sometimes I think these sorts of tools are simply created for people who have "run away minds"- that forget they are not their thoughts. They are not grounded in their body.
While they are searching to rise out of their body to avoid the antics of their mind, some people are very grounded in their body and that keeps the mind from straying out of the moment. The very physical people that the intellectuals like to look down on might have the key up their sleeve!

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?) Wouldn't that be an ironic twist??

TextSetting goals doesn't make experience possible, existence makes it possible.
It is this that makes the appearance of movement possible.

I just wrote on this in another thread. Without intent, experience is limited to gray, formless timelessness.
While incarnated, that means apathy, indifference. There is no suffering, that is for sure. But there is nothing else either. I end up choosing variation of experiences, and intent suddenly brings out colors and contrasts and interactions between separate beings and forms. This makes for wider experiences. That is joyful.

Peace and contentment gets boring eventually!

edit on 18-9-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

Text



Yes Itsnowagain was literal statements of fact and as in the case of the OP disagreement still happens.
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.
Not a metaphor :If say you are in a panic attack , you are thinking about a past experience (the traumatic past) and imagining it is and will be repeated disliking it intensely (and your body reacts) are you fully present in the NOW. No I am afraid being fully present is not a given.Meaning that the mind can be focused on thoughts of past and future, instead of focused on the present.

Why think people are as they are (with what you say have "run away thoughts"?) because they are not grounded in their body? What is this grounding in the body needed to be in the NOW? Being very physical does not still the mind or stop cravings,desires fears.


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.
When you know who you are there is no problems with identity.


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.

Contentment does not get boring.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

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?
What is cancer? Its your own body's cell growing too fast causing tumors. Do I feel love for my body yes as I feed it.

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.

What is cancer? Its your own body's cell growing too fast causing tumors. Do I feel love for my body yes as I feed it.

Tell someone dying of cancer that, and they will think that you are spouting absurdities to justify an idea.

NiNjABackflip
reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight

 

dont see this an attack on you but Itisnowagain does not go by the title someone, why introduce the word someone? Alternatively you are attempting to "limit" Itisnowagain to "a someone" Please explain why you used this perhaps

I do not know him/her personally, but I know that he is not no one, because someone is needed to type and think. How is that limiting? If anything, calling oneself "no one" is the limitation, because he is declaring himself as nothing. I see him as more than that in my eyes.

What you are seeing is an idea of 'him' in mind.
Really there are just words appearing on a screen.

Are you staying present with what is present or are you imagining something other than what is happening?
Are you seeing things that are not there?

Notice that the mind loves to fill the blank.

Itisnowagain
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Can you choose the next thought that arises? If you could there would be no need to replace a negative thought with a positive one. It is of course impossible to replace a thought because a thought happens and has happened and it is too late.

If you can choose them then you would also be able to stop them at will - can you stop thought from arising?
Try it and let me know if you are successful.

edit on 18-9-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I choose beforehand- not after the fact, of course.
One cannot choose what bubbles up out of the subconscious,
BUT one can choose what they feed into it.

The form of my perception, my judgements, the emotions I associate with all the incoming stimuli right now will all sink into my subconscious and influence what comes up out of it days, months, years, from now.


To give a very simple example- if an event happens right now, and I choose to judge harshly someone for it, to be angry with them and retain that anger in association with them, then that will influence the thoughts that "arise" later when I run into them. It will even influence the sorts of behaviors that "arise" out of me without my consciously choosing them. It could make me do or be exactly the behavior I judged harshly (one of the sources of hypocrisy)
So for that reason, putting effort into not judging too harshly, and into finding comprehension, and not holding grudges, I do now, for my future.

It may seem, later, like all these thoughts and behaviors are coming out of me totally beyond my will.
I find that to be a mistake and illusion. This plane has linear time which makes cause and effect possible, and effects are sometimes not immediate.

This is part of the way anti-depressants can be effective in the long run- whilst in a "positive" state, induced by the medication, more positive judgements and associations are fed into the subconscious by the conscious, so that later, they arise instead of the negative previous programming.

LIken it to seeding plants, or fertilizing eggs. One could play with words and say the plant arose from nothing, the baby formed of nothing, and in some wildly non-physical planes, this is a truism.

But in very down to earth, time and space physical plane, this is false. There were events in the past that do not exist anymore, but that influenced this NOW, and this NOW will influence the future (which also doesn't exist- yet).

All change means a death and a birth- the end, or stopping, of one state, and the beginning or birth of another. In a movement, it can be correct to say there is a "stop" of something.... but if you prefer to instead say there is a "beginning" of the other thing, you can. They are both valid.

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.

BDBinc

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.

I guess I was so blown away by your claim not to have heard of the "ego as body" ideas, I forgot to reply to the second stage of "ego as a mental image" one.

This too, I suspect you are familiar with , despite your claim.
Many self proclaimed "spiritual" people believe that the "ego" is in fact a mental form of self, that is false and needs to be ascended beyond, in order to know the "true" self.

If one simply identifies the self as their body, they would always be 'in the present" because the body is an object, that is always in the present, and only mind strays to inexistent mental "localities" or "times".

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What you are seeing is an idea of 'him' in mind.
Really there are just words appearing on a screen.

Are you staying present with what is present or are you imagining something other than what is happening?
Are you seeing things that are not there?

Notice that the mind loves to fill the blank.

Words appear on screen and I know they come from someone. That's the way it works and has always worked. If that isn't the case, and maybe a computer is thinking your words and typing them, then I am being deceived.

I am always present and I am staying present with what is present at all times without choice. Am I seeing things that aren't there? I'm fairly certain my thoughts are there presently. Maybe the difference between myself and the ones you preach to is that I don't see what are in my thoughts as real – for instance, when I think about a house, I don't believe an actual house is in my head.

Imagine if the mind didn't fill in the blank and you wouldn't be able to imagine at all.