How much are you present in your present?

[osho]

Being present in the present is to give spaciousness to what we do or say. Most of us are not absent in the present since the past is always likely to interfere into our present.

[cacian]

I live day by day I have to admit. I use time as it comes to me I never go to it. I let things take their normal flow. It is easy that way.:)

[osho]

Letting things go the way they come our way is what soothes us in everyday life. The joy of letting go is inestimable. We are too much obsessed with history and we cannot enjoy the thing at hand but do keep on imaging and imagining distant things obloquying the present. The present is what we have and the people I am in interaction now matters more than anybody who are outside this net for the moment. Now those who read this and sends a response matters to me more than anybody who is not in contact physically, emotionally or virtually.

[YesNo]

I don't know how much I am embodying myself or living in the here and now. At some times I don't know how I could not be present except that the mind could focus my awareness on past events or future possibilities distracting me from what is actually going on at the moment. I understand that meditation techniques try to get one to focus on words or the breath to train oneself to stay present.

How would we know whether we are currently present or currently distracted?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect if one finds oneself angry or filled with desires one would not be focused on the present. One reason to avoid such emotions is to stay aware of the present.

[cacian]

I have to admit I am weary of meditation. I do not know enough about it but from what I have seen so far I do feel uneasy about it.
I guess I find the stand of meditation being still rather unnerving. The mind must not gel but must contribute. Any state of going somewhere where the imagination is let loose kind of unnerves me again. The human mind is a mine and we do not know enough about it and so one must be aware that what is not natural to any human condition must be looked at. The only time the mind is in 'meditative state' ie at rest is when the body is asleep ie when are are tired and go to sleep. That is the natural way and the only time the mind requires it and that is once a day/night. Then there is dreaming which mean that when the body is asleep the mind is still flowing hence the dreams. The mind never switches off and that has a reason of its own.I find meditation to teach the mind to switch off when the body requires it to be active. There is two conflicting forces. Just my two cents on it.

[YesNo]

I agree if meditation is a way to go to sleep, it is worthless. That would be the opposite of training the mind to be aware. Perhaps there are some other techniques.

[cacian]

I agree if meditation is a way to go to sleep, it is worthless. That would be the opposite of training the mind to be aware. Perhaps there are some other techniques.

I am not aware of them. I personally do not like being still for more then ten minutes unless I am typing or resting lol
The other thing is why do people meditate?

[osho]

Meditation has no specific technique. Meditation is to let loose things and let the mind rest and relax. When the mind is set free not imprisoned. We are slaving away all the time; our minds become slaves of someone' s thought or ideology. Let us carve out its own course out of the crowds or jungles of ideologies and ideologues. Every minute we are consciously or unconsciously registering tens of thousands of ideas or thoughts which are junks, uncreative entrants. Our minds thus become prisoners oft these alien elements and as a result we become restrained or stressed out.

The appeal is let our past not rule over our beautiful present.

[liza]

I'm never in the present .. don't like present .. usually nostalgize the past .. :) or thinking the future in a pessimistic or optimistic way ..

[YesNo]

Meditation has no specific technique. Meditation is to let loose things and let the mind rest and relax. When the mind is set free not imprisoned. We are slaving away all the time; our minds become slaves of someone' s thought or ideology. Let us carve out its own course out of the crowds or jungles of ideologies and ideologues. Every minute we are consciously or unconsciously registering tens of thousands of ideas or thoughts which are junks, uncreative entrants. Our minds thus become prisoners oft these alien elements and as a result we become restrained or stressed out.

The appeal is let our past not rule over our beautiful present.

That makes sense. So I assume you would recommend some form of meditation to keep out the alien elements.


I am not aware of them. I personally do not like being still for more then ten minutes unless I am typing or resting lol
The other thing is why do people meditate?

I wonder myself, although I have tried it. It seems to work, but I'm not sure. I'm not even sure what the goal is to say that it works. Also I rarely get to even 10 minutes before I'm distracted.

[jayat]

The happy thing is to stay in the present, live the present, even when it's tedious or disgusting. Evading is some kind of drug for the brain. Another thing is diluting ourselves when writing or reading. Don't make a mess with the concepts, fellows. We should be living in the present and loving it second to second to live a life to the fullest...!

[cafolini]

The past might be a matter of vague record, and the present is gone tomorrow before it can be considered.

Life is not the one we lived, but the one we remember. ~ G. G. Marquez

[YesNo]

The happy thing is to stay in the present, live the present, even when it's tedious or disgusting. Evading is some kind of drug for the brain.

I like the "even when it's tedious or disgusting" part although I do get distracted from the present. I have noticed I'm not any happier when I do get distracted, just more distracted.

[jayat]

The past might be a matter of vague record, and the present is gone tomorrow before it can be considered.

Life is not the one we lived, but the one we remember. ~ G. G. Marquez

What you are referring is to fantasise. That is not living, but interpreting (lying to some extent) what we once experienced (lived) right there and back then. Writing takes quite of this Marquez' quote. The 90 % of things written are things recalled, remembered. The rest are reports on the spot, microphone in hand...

[cacian]

I wonder myself, although I have tried it. It seems to work, but I'm not sure. I'm not even sure what the goal is to say that it works. Also I rarely get to even 10 minutes before I'm distracted.

Distraction is part of the mind deal meaning the mind does like wondering where it is not wanted and so distractions occur. I call a reaction to a forced action. I am not sure I understand the need to escape the present.


I'm never in the present .. don't like present .. usually nostalgize the past .. :) or thinking the future in a pessimistic or optimistic way ..
And where are you then?


Meditation has no specific technique. Meditation is to let loose things and let the mind rest and relax. When the mind is set free not imprisoned. We are slaving away all the time; our minds become slaves of someone' s thought or ideology. Let us carve out its own course out of the crowds or jungles of ideologies and ideologues. Every minute we are consciously or unconsciously registering tens of thousands of ideas or thoughts which are junks, uncreative entrants. Our minds thus become prisoners oft these alien elements and as a result we become restrained or stressed out.

The appeal is let our past not rule over our beautiful present.
Our past is what makes us today running away from it makes it weaker.

[Paulclem]

There was an intersting article in the New Scientist recently where they were looking at the self. Our perception that things are happening s we perceive them isn't quite right due to the small processing delay, and the small time lapse of the incoming stimuli. They currently think that the brain anticipates what is going to happen and weaves this into the explanation, and visual experience it presents to the individual.

This is only the current scientific view. It is not an easy question to answer with any kind of insight or accuracy apparently.

[cafolini]

What you are referring is to fantasise. That is not living, but interpreting (lying to some extent) what we once experienced (lived) right there and back then. Writing takes quite of this Marquez' quote. The 90 % of things written are things recalled, remembered. The rest are reports on the spot, microphone in hand...

Reports on the spot are reports made in the developmental environment of what's remembered. Marquez statement is not fantasy at all. I think it is your pretention to objectivity, microphone in hand, that stinks with the fantasy you pretend without purpose.

[jayat]

I like the "even when it's tedious or disgusting" part although I do get distracted from the present. I have noticed I'm not any happier when I do get distracted, just more distracted.

It happen the same to me. I get distracted but I try to "embrace" all (good and certainly bad).


Reports on the spot are reports made in the developmental environment of what's remembered. Marquez statement is not fantasy at all. I think it is your pretention to objectivity, microphone in hand, that stinks with the fantasy you pretend without purpose.

No. I don't pretend anything neither I said Marquez' statment was or not fantasy. Read carefully. I said living is suffering, is feeling, is not remembering. That is another thing has nothing to do with living. Living is assuming, accepting without judgment what the very present offers to us, facing it resilently. Afterwards, we conceptualise all this living by remembering it, evoting it, by putting literature into it if you want (Marquez quote). But that is not living. That is the masturbation we do upon something experienced, that is, lived. What's more, I wouldn't lose myself in the nightmare of objectivity. I see you use too much this word, what is a trap by itself. Things are more simple. Don't let language and concept make a fuss in you. We are animals: evoluted monkeys but anything else. We use ties and laptops and eat from a dish but just animals, at the end. So we follow simple, natural strategies and movements.

In addition, I tried to say literature comes from recalls and remembers 90%. Just open a literary book. Written in past tense: pure evocation, more or less affected, mannered, even languidous but evocation all in all. We could say literature is the overcome of living onced brewed in our brains by recalling or remembering it. The rest are reports at at the foot of the hot spot (wars, earthquakes, riverflows, starvation,...). We could say that is living, more or less true living canned (with the use of micros, cameras,...).


There was an intersting article in the New Scientist recently where they were looking at the self. Our perception that things are happening s we perceive them isn't quite right due to the small processing delay, and the small time lapse of the incoming stimuli. They currently think that the brain anticipates what is going to happen and weaves this into the explanation, and visual experience it presents to the individual.

This is only the current scientific view. It is not an easy question to answer with any kind of insight or accuracy apparently.

I agree. But let me put upwards an idea that pop up in my mind reading your words. I repeat, reading them, that is not what you say. Your words "suggested" mines. Right. We should try to simplify things. All that research is okey but we usually lose the fact we are animals at the end. We, as human people, are an accident in Nature. That is all. Instinct and irrationality rules us more than we could expect by judging our good manners when talking or eating, socialising, etc.

[cafolini]

No. I don't pretend anything neither I said Marquez' statment was or not fantasy. Read carefully. I said living is suffering, is feeling, is not remembering. That is another thing has nothing to do with living. Living is assuming, accepting without judgment what the very present offers to us, facing it resilently. Afterwards, we conceptualise all this living by remembering it, evoting it, by putting literature into it if you want (Marquez quote). But that is not living. That is the masturbation we do upon something experienced, that is, lived. What's more, I wouldn't lose myself in the nightmare of objectivity. I see you use too much this word, what is a trap by itself. Things are more simple. Don't let language and concept make a fuss in you. We are animals: evoluted monkeys but anything else. We use ties and laptops and eat from a dish but just animals, at the end. So we follow simple, natural strategies and movements.

In addition, I tried to say literature comes from recalls and remembers 90%. Just open a literary book. Written in past tense: pure evocation, more or less affected, mannered, even languidous but evocation all in all. We could say literature is the overcome of living onced brewed in our brains by recalling or remembering it. The rest are reports at at the foot of the hot spot (wars, earthquakes, riverflows, starvation,...). We could say that is living, more or less true living canned (with the use of micros, cameras,...).

How about a little sun dried tomato in your pizza topping? LOL

[jayat]

How about a little sun dried tomato in your pizza topping? LOL

What should I ask now? I confess you make me smile again.

[Paulclem]

I agree. But let me put upwards an idea that pop up in my mind reading your words. I repeat, reading them, that is not what you say. Your words "suggested" mines. Right. We should try to simplify things. All that research is okey but we usually lose the fact we are animals at the end. We, as human people, are an accident in Nature. That is all. Instinct and irrationality rules us more than we could expect by judging our good manners when talking or eating, socialising, etc.

We, as human people, are an accident in Nature. That is all.

Many people do not agree - myself included, though you seem to think that it is a self evident fact. it is not.

Instinct and irrationality rules

I don't think they do. how could modern societies have developed if this were the whole case. of course there is instinct and irrationality, but there is also rationality, co-operation, compassion, society, mutual interests, law etc etc

Although I referred to the New Scientist article, what is evident is how little modern science has progressed in its appreciation of the complexity of the mind, especially when you consider how fundamental to our ex-perience the feeling of self, here and now are.

[YesNo]

I agree that we are not an accident in nature. That seems to be an assumption or a speculation that is not well justified.

Thanks for the reference to the New Scientist article, Paulclem. I'll be looking for it in the library today. Although there is a lot of speculation in science it is nice to see what experimental results are available.

[osho]

To think we are an accident in nature is an irrational and baseless proposition. That who we are and what our destiny is unknown and unknowable. No matter how far we have gone to study physical science and physical phenomena. We want to know the truth, the truth about our origin or the purpose of our coming here.

[cafolini]

The purpose of our coming here was to enjoy Koonpaw Chicken.

[cacian]

To think we are an accident in nature is an irrational and baseless proposition. That who we are and what our destiny is unknown and unknowable. No matter how far we have gone to study physical science and physical phenomena. We want to know the truth, the truth about our origin or the purpose of our coming here.

I am not sure an accident is quite the word. I am pretty sure life is a purpose and we are the force that drives it.
Nothing happens accidently. The human body and mind is too aesthetically and intentionally perfect and so is the environment around it. Nothing is to chances.
Theoretically we should at this stage have worked the mechanism of nature and its surrounding but one has to say the fail is too miserable for words. It is uncanny how unprogressive modern men and time are. Humans have yet to achieve a fraction of the purpose and meaning of life. Chances are nothing but mistakes. Logic however is purpose.

[Gorki]

I live day by day I have to admit. I use time as it comes to me I never go to it. I let things take their normal flow. It is easy that way.:)

How I wish it had been so easy for me as well! It becomes so difficult to concentrate on present as the brain constantly harasses you with the past events and bothers you with future uncertainity!

[cafolini]

Caciansclerosis again? Not a chance. LOL

[cacian]

Caciansclerosis again? Not a chance. LOL

Nah just a cafolinisclerosis followed with a big ROFL


How I wish it had been so easy for me as well! It becomes so difficult to concentrate on present as the brain constantly harasses you with the past events and bothers you with future uncertainity!

Concentration is tricky it depends on the activity. For example it who is talking and saying what. Uncertainties i do not bother about because i cannot predict what comes next and so i let it happen. Planning life just does not work haha.

[Paulclem]

I agree that we are not an accident in nature. That seems to be an assumption or a speculation that is not well justified.

Thanks for the reference to the New Scientist article, Paulclem. I'll be looking for it in the library today. Although there is a lot of speculation in science it is nice to see what experimental results are available.

It was a front cover article about the self. Fascinating stuff.

[jayat]

We, as human people, are an accident in Nature. That is all.

Many people do not agree - myself included, though you seem to think that it is a self evident fact. it is not.

Instinct and irrationality rules

I don't think they do. how could modern societies have developed if this were the whole case. of course there is instinct and irrationality, but there is also rationality, co-operation, compassion, society, mutual interests, law etc etc

Although I referred to the New Scientist article, what is evident is how little modern science has progressed in its appreciation of the complexity of the mind, especially when you consider how fundamental to our ex-perience the feeling of self, here and now are.

Do you make the equation rationality = compassion, co-operation, etc? Rationality is a little fishing ship in the sub-conscious/irrational ocean of the brain. Need is the purpose and instincts are the means even though we use a tie to go to work (all that are conventions, the same as language, another artifitial convention).

[Paulclem]

No I didn't make that equation. I merely pointed out that instinct and irrationality are part of the human condition and do not account for many of the human developments that we see around us, and which have existed for a long time - such as community.

[YesNo]

It was a front cover article about the self. Fascinating stuff.

I enjoyed the articles. Anil Ananthaswamy's discussion of almost out-of-body experiences was interesting. Although they start with stimulating the body to get their results, and are brain-centric, I wonder when the subject of the experiments will bring back true information from a perspective his or her original body could not have access to sort of like in remote viewing.