The Cacoon of "Now"

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
21

:unamused:

Well, if you define “Living in the present” as “denying and running from any thought that pertains to reasoning based off information from the past and looking at future possibilities”, I agree with your claim that that isn’t a good thing.

As for that “that’s what we are” nonsense… I covered that.

However, “living in the present” can refer to something else–realizing that
you are (=) (living in_ the present *subjective experience).

IE what you presently experience (whether “living in the past or future or fantasy” at that moment) is (the most accurate) what you are–your interpretation of things being good or bad is you, at that moment, deeming something good or bad. Deeming something bad is due to associating it with “bad”, which itself only has meaning in terms of certain experiences–pain, anxiety, illness, etc. (that we would all experience as bad); oftentimes we (due to placing so much emphases on being or maintaining “good” in the future, or “avoiding bad”) curse our present experiences (refuse to accept/“live in” the present moment) because neuronal networks process a (perceived) form (communicable “thing”) as “bad”, due to its associations with associations with associations etc. etc. that bridge to the “bad” (avoid) network.

However, most of the time, these “bad” things aren’t actually “bad” (in the root meaning of the term as I’ve described it)
–they’re not causing states (of physical pain, illness, etc. that we’d all agree are “bad” (something one ought to not consciously seek/encourage/cause)–
but instead cause a small irritation/frustration that, I don’t think, ought to be equated with (experiences of a socially-shared label of) “bad”, because
(with the exception of using drugs or surgical procedures to remove–or, at least, circumvent–certain “emotional functions” in the brain)
it’s not a realistic/practical goal to try to avoid experiencing them; “Bad” can only have a useful, practical meaning if it clearly refers to certain kind of states that–resulting from certain concrete, easily communicated things (rape, puncture wound, poison, etc.)–are not only agreed to be states we all want to avoid, but actually possible to correlate with easily communicated things and actions so that they can be successfully avoided.

People oftentimes equate the perceived source of “bad” with their state of irritation (which itself isn’t a productive use of “bad”), convincing themselves they ought to feel irritated by the bad thing, convincing themselves the bad thing ought to not be (that which makes it bad), but–not understanding their own role (of experiencing it, and deeming it “bad”) in the resulting irritation, they impotently try to “fix” the bad by–rather than telling themselves it isn’t anything to worry about, or placing their focus on some other (socially shared) present thing (in the environment)–analyzing all the potential “bad” effects of the “bad” thing (as well as all the “bad” things that likely caused it) reinforcing and building their irritation and making themselves miserable.

The (actually practical/productive) intended meaning of “Live in the present” is meant to curb THAT. THAT is the context for that statement–having better experiences; the context is that you always live in the present (that is the definer/judge of value), and that experiences should be considered as such. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think about the past and future, and use reasoning, but that there should be a present grounding in it (it should be done to practically make better present experiences).

22

Hi Pandora. It’s hard to find old posts of course. I can’t keep track of what goes on. But I did find this , which contains a response by me that works just as well in this thread.

23

I guess this is a sticking point for me and yes, I admit, the “no mind-no time” perspective bugs me.
Thanks for digging it up.

Although I do agree with the points made in your post I still think we are talking about two different things. Yes, I know that no matter what I think I do so in the present - when I think about the past I don’t actually go into the past, and when I think about the future I don’t actually go into the future. All happens in the present. This is a given. I already know that.
Here are the distinctions that I see:

  1. One thinks about the future - One does so in the present
  2. One stays in the present - One does so in the present
  3. One thinks about the future - One does so in the present
  4. One thinks of alternate realities - One does so in the present

The fact that one always stays in the present is a given. There is no need to emphasize it since it is always the case no matter what you do. Consider this analogy: driving a car with and without a map. I am using a map metaphor because by projecting from the past and from the potential future as your reference points you locate and position yourself - you move - relative to those points (yes, all of this while still being in the present). This projecting gives you greater mobility, more choices, or power over your destiny, if you want. Now, if you drive a car without a map just wherever, you are still in the present, but you don’t have a reference point to locate yourself relative to other things, you are always “in the now” and you are always “here”, you are will-less and standing still. Your position is governed by mere chance, and you are pretty much constrained by your surrounding environment, you don’t willingly go anywhere, you let the environment dictate where you go. The difference betwen the two is that one gives you freedom to move, while the other keeps you in one place, always. And yes, both still happen “in the present”.

24

I agree with everything you’ve said here. There’s a distinction to be made though, that I think you’re missing. It’s just basic psychology. In fact it’s so basic that most people understand it immediately. You can be so wrapped up in “living in the past” that you don’t see what’s right in front of you. You can be so caught up in what you think life is “supposed to be” that you don’t actually live a full and meaningful life. You can be so caught up in planning for the future that you are unable to live well in the present.

That most people understand this is all well and good, but I think many people make certain common mistakes. One mistake, imo, is to not see that the “present moment” includes the past and future - so they live recklessly - without a map, as you put it. Another mistake, imo, is to feel overwhelmed by mental habits and presume something like “I’m a worrier. That’s just the way I am.” I think that to a very large degree it takes a methodology and a discipline in order to cultivate a healthy relationship relative to these things. Otherwise, we tend to be repeatedly and continuously carried away by our deeply ingrained mental habits. Rather than seeing the freshness of life as it arises, we tend to remain wrapped up in our own personally constructed world of discursive chatter and other egoic tendencies. That is the cocoon that keeps the fresh air out.

25

My problem with this attitude is that people take it and ibue it with spiritual aura. I understand its therapeutic effects, but activities like gardening, jogging, having a picnic in the park, playing sports, or any number of other recreational activities that have been known to people for thousands of years can achieve the same thing. My point is that people already know it. They may be constantly worrying about things, but they know how to rest their mind if they need to. It can be incorporated, but it should not replace. By elevating it into spiritual realms you are saying that it is better than.
There is no need to make it some sacred otherness - no need to sit on a yoga mat in a buddha position and chant om. There is no need to pay money to attend classes or read books that teach you how not to think - the eastern way. That’s my problem. People have been so enfatuated with it that they’ve made it their new diety, that it’s some exotic “no mind” state that is a gateway to spiritual worlds, and they’ve put it above and beyond critical thinking, which they now label as evil. It’s also a vicios circle, the ony way to be in this sacred state is not to analyze it, just as it is in Christianity that the only way to be in God’s grace is to have faith.

26

Again, I agree completely. But you’re being unfair. How does sitting in “buddha position” have anything to do with “sacred otherness”? Do you know what Buddhists are doing when they “meditate”? The fact is, you can garden all you want, but you won’t overcome these unhealthy mental tendencies through the act of gardening, unless you utilize the act of gardening to train your mind to overcome healthy mental tendencies - at which point, gardening becomes a form of meditation, whether you call it that or not.

27

That’s why many people, in the West, sit in the Buddha position and do prescribed chanting in foreign language, to begin with, they believe that it will help them to connect to that sacred otherness…with yoga mat, incense and all. Many do not do it for relaxation alone, but for some exotic spiritual gain they are promised.

The goal of the Buddhists in meditation is to detach from the world they live in and to dissolve the ego-self into a passive awareness, the other self, to which they ascribe higher spiritual value. Not only it is a meditation, it is also a philosophy of life, and so it reaches further and becomes a lifestyle goal.

And many people do exactly that. I’ve seen many people do that on the weekends, not because they are participating in a rose competition and need to have the best garden on the block, or they need to produce a good yield of crop to feed on when the winter comes, but because of its therapeutic effects on the mind.

28

There is definitely something to be said for putting some brakes on the left-brain rationality and critical thinking. As usual people tend to overstate things when they are reacting against something else, their reactive view gains too much value in their eyes and they overshoot the mark, hence you get all the pseudo-mystical ideas of renouncing your mind or intellecualism or whatever in order to return to “natural” animal-like states. Yes this seems to be a common theme in the new age movement, but it is a simplification and over-reaction based on ignorance – it does not mean that there is nothing to this idea of renunciation.

We need to find a balance between aspects of ourselves. This is health, balance, a holism of mind where all parts work together within all other parts, supporting them. Currently our modern world is dominated by left-brained technological rationalism at the expense of our right-brained intuition and of our emotions. So scaling back the rationality aspect can bring more awareness of our emotional self, our intuitive self, and many dichotomies can be resolved in a healthy way because of this. But once again it is about seeking a relative balance (not an absolute balance) where each part works within a whole, to the betterment of other parts and not at their expense.

As for “living in the present” this is more of a secondary reaction to the pseud-mystical idea itself, a consequence of the initial over-reaction and once again, for the same reason of ignorance. Yes it is good to live in the moment, to not waste excess mental energy wandering the fantasies of past and future – but also it is good to wander the past and future, this is a part of what it means to be human. Yet when either “side” become too powerful at the expense of the other you get imbalance and dischord and harm. People who never live in the moment are disconnected from their lives and from themselves and thus are incapable of any self-honesty, any higher awareness of either themselves or those around them, and are doomed to a reactive automatism in their dealings with others, as their input is so stunted that the body merely takes over mechanically. Most people seem to be like this. But on the other “side” youve got people who truly try to live only in the moment, who deliberately stunt their minds and creativity and who seek after an animality-type consciousness. These people will be unable to relate to anyone else, they will be very self-focused at the expense of the world around them, and they will lack intuition and creative energy with which to actually use their honed skills of awareness upon in positive and productive ways.

Too much of anything is a bad thing. As we all (hopefully) know. Everything has its relative place within everything else, its ideal functioning level and strength. As we tend to be unbalanced along the left-brain rationality as well as along the other axis of mental fantasy-wandering, most of us lack either a deeper intuition, a sense of self-honesty and an acute awareness capable of focusing rather than diffusing. So we can stand to benefit from a bit of “living in the now” and of “scaling back” the over-rational aspects of the mind – but always within the context of attaining to balance and internal harmony and health.

29

In terms of the “Buddha position” or “sacred oneness”, people ascribe spirituality to these and other methods of attaining to a focusing of mind via “living in the moment” because this can be and often is a spiritual experience for people. If you have ever meditated deeply and attained this sort of focus of awareness in the moment, gained more control over your thoughts so that they do not speed by against your will, and felt your body and mind calm, slow down and synchronize into a harmonious “buzzing” or “floating” feeling, where you can sense the energy flowing within you, then you would understand why people think of this sort of thing as spiritual.

“Oneness” is a religous concept because when people experience it they interpret it as religious, deeply spiritual. Far more spiritual than sitting in a pew and chanting in latin, or lying to a priest in a confession box, or kneeling and praying to a big cube halfway around the world. Meditation and the “religions” that center around them are more personal and powerful because they truly connect you to yourself in ways that cannot very well be described from one person to another who has not experienced it. If we want to call these experiences “spiritual” or “oneness” or whatever, it doesnt really matter what we call them, words are irrelevant. The experience is what counts, and many people who have these experiences genuinely feel something divine, spiritual about them, and so that is how they refer to them.

30

And let me also add: if you have never attained a successful deep meditation, Buddhist or otherwise, you honestly cannot comment on these experiences. That is not arrogance on my part in saying this, it is just simple fact. To understand these experiences one has to have them.

31

Yes, some people are looking to connect with “sacred otherness”. Some people buy potato chips in health food stores too.

This is not the goal of Buddhists. What are your sources for this claim? Tolle doesn’t count by the way.

Yes, people use gardening for its therapeutic effects on the mind. And that’s great. But meditation practice is a rigorous, methodical, disciplined approach to the problem of pervasive dissatisfaction. It has a philosophical basis, and is broadly empirical in its approach. It is concerned with long-term solutions, and facing life and life’s problems directly. Gardening can be a form of meditation practice (it has been for me), but this should be understood realistically. Meditation isn’t just a way to relax for a while.

I also get the impression that you’re only thinking of one kind of “meditation”, and thinking of it in a vague way. There are many kinds of meditation, and they are highly specific in their purpose and technique. Even “goal-less” or “do nothing” or “just be” meditations are highly specific in their instructions.

32

Meditation has nothing to do with “dissolving an ego”, or “spacing out” or “detaching” from reality. Holding such ignorant and false views betray only that one has never attained to meditation themselves – which makes me wonder why they are to set on judging it.

33

True. It is a common misconception.

34

There is no “sacred otherness”. People choose to perceive this world as an illusion (maya) only to chase after another one.

I am not concerned with the original goal of the Buddhism, as seen from the Buddhist authorities, only for the one I perceive as being presented and received by the West. And if it is to eliminate suffering, as everybody seems to be saying, then the Buddhists are deceiving themselves, that is, are being dishonest with themselves, especially if they aslo incorporate spiritual realms into their philosophy/religion. The plain fact is, you neither eliminate nor mitigate suffering in the world by turning your head away from it, just as you do not eliminate the realness of death and cessation of one’s existence by inventing reincarnation.

Why does dissatisfaction have to be a problem?
It is only through dissatisfaction that we progress and evolve. If it were not for dissasisfaction we would still be swinging from the trees in an African jungle.

I see a lot of spiritual realms mentioned in Buddhist texts and addressed in Buddhist rituals. There is nothing empirical about such things.

So is Western analytical thinking. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Western analytical thinking is better at dealing with life’s problems by directly engaging them.

Personally, and this is just personally speaking, I think meditation should be primarily as means for relaxation, although I do not deny its existential aspect. And here, I am not refering to strict rigorous eastern meditation, but rather Western kinds of meditative activities, such as fishing or strolling through the park, or just having a walk at the beach.

35

I address it as I see it being presented in the West. Again, I am not concerned about the theological/scholastic interpretation of Buddhism, only as it presented and affects regular people in the West.
The ego and the self that is attached to it is villified, and the goal of the meditation more often than not, is to dissolve the ego…and the mind. This is also attached to a greater philosophy which demeans the ego-self and elevates the self that that has no “mind” (in Western sense).

36

Personalities like Tolle and Chopra count even more because they are mainstream and have more influencing power behind them.

Listen to what Chopra says in his meditations. He describes the meditative state as a mindset of a child and basically as an ‘attitude of surrender’. He then ties in metaphysical laws of the universe (karma) and gives precdedence of body (what feels more comfortable) over the mind. :confused:

youtube.com/watch?v=2PF3ngl7fuY

youtube.com/watch?v=r5BgNRe8SSs

youtube.com/watch?v=BjXqnWo1-CM

37

Well then what can I say? Your beef is with New Age spirituality, and not with Buddhism.

38

Which animals are in your view lower?

39

Well, they tie in Buddhism into that, so how can I not have beef with it too?
youtube.com/watch?v=hOzwFHb_PzE

40

Pandora, what is essential in your thinking? Put it in few hypotheses please.