|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 8, 2015 12:33:54 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result.
What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives.
I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once.
The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true.
Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind.
And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 14:25:33 GMT -5
no brainer
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 22:07:11 GMT -5
What a great perspective, while reading this I felt a sense of security that usually comes when a speaker is confident. This level of understanding that you expressed isn't easy to develop. I've seen many people reach this stage of spirituality, but unfortunately all of them didn't progress any further. Not saying that you won't progress of course. But it seemed as though when understanding the nature of, "Now", through means of intellectual concepts, it causes most seekers to miss the whole point of our beingness. That is Love of course. I just thought i'd share my ideas, simply because different stages of spirituality are apparent to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2015 23:16:09 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. Good OP, I have some questions, to clarify. I don't get the introduction of the idea of being safe. It seems you mean physically safe, but I presume you mean more? Self/ego safe? (I'm going to assume that most men don't have a sense of not-being safe, ordinarily. I'm not really sure how women might feel concerning this, but I would presume it would be more of a concern than for a man). Also, knowledge, does this include memory? (Not necessarily self as memory). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 1:38:45 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. So, May I know are you or your awareness is always in the present movement? More closely put, Is your attention always remains with what's happening in the present movement all the time? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2015 10:08:15 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. Good OP, I have some questions, to clarify. I don't get the introduction of the idea of being safe. It seems you mean physically safe, but I presume you mean more? Self/ego safe? (I'm going to assume that most men don't have a sense of not-being safe, ordinarily. I'm not really sure how women might feel concerning this, but I would presume it would be more of a concern than for a man). Also, knowledge, does this include memory? (Not necessarily self as memory). Yes, safe physically, emotionally, psychologically and existentially. Yes, I mean memory. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2015 19:56:10 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. If following a prescription like "watch the thinker" or "attend your sense of being" results in a transformative experience then advice like this can seem counter intuitive. Eventually though, if a typical meditative practice like watching the breath is followed without an attachment to outcome then this question, "Why not NOW, always?" is definitely a no-brainer.  Doesn't part of that remaining open and alert involve the natural engagement with a thinking process in the flow of events? For instance, I changed my wiper blades today and noticed a helpful diagram on the box that probably saved some time.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2015 21:37:57 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. If following a prescription like "watch the thinker" or "attend your sense of being" results in a transformative experience then advice like this can seem counter intuitive. Advice like what? Yes, it's a funny thang, though. As I see it, we have structured thinking based societies that virtually require thinking in certain circumstances in order to function. An example is technology based vocations. While I would never deny man's creative potential, how that potential expresses is determined by the paradigm of his society. We can, perhaps, envision a much more wholistic society integrated with the natural movements and cycles of nature which, while potentially highly sophisticated, may not require the cognitive intensity that ours sometimes does. Beyond that, what I've said on the OP applies to a great extent in highly technical problem solving. I'm a problem solver by inclination, (and an engineer) but my process involves very little of what we would call thinking. In the same way that we can stop the mind and 'look' in order to see through some illusion, we can also have realizations of a practical, technical matter by doing precisely the same thing with a different focus of consciousness. This is, in fact, the scientist's 'AHA!' moment. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 10, 2015 1:18:19 GMT -5
If following a prescription like "watch the thinker" or "attend your sense of being" results in a transformative experience then advice like this can seem counter intuitive. Advice like what? Yes, it's a funny thang, though. As I see it, we have structured thinking based societies that virtually require thinking in certain circumstances in order to function. An example is technology based vocations. While I would never deny man's creative potential, how that potential expresses is determined by the paradigm of his society. We can, perhaps, envision a much more wholistic society integrated with the natural movements and cycles of nature which, while potentially highly sophisticated, may not require the cognitive intensity that ours sometimes does. Beyond that, what I've said on the OP applies to a great extent in highly technical problem solving. I'm a problem solver by inclination, (and an engineer) but my process involves very little of what we would call thinking. In the same way that we can stop the mind and 'look' in order to see through some illusion, we can also have realizations of a practical, technical matter by doing precisely the same thing with a different focus of consciousness. This is, in fact, the scientist's 'AHA!' moment. The advice is to be open and alert. Relaxing and broadening the scope of awareness, allowing the vigilance to trail off can sound to someone involved in a mindfulness practice like a suggestion to backslide, to surrender to getting lost in thought. What I've come to understand through both meditation and the literature about it is that the state of positive flow one can find themselves in when they're framing a wall or sweating a pipe is the same to be had when writing code or solving a complex equation. Those latter two activities are definitely mind-based rather than body-based, and while they can involve creativity, it's sort of woven into the structure of it rather than concentrated in a point realization. So while I'd say the point about forcing activity of the mind is valid, I'd opine that it's really only certain specific qualities of a mind engaged in thinking that remove one from the present. It's certainty easier to either notice or to be in the here and now absent thought, and the fact is, that the more our societal structure promotes a noisy mental landscape, the more this point is brought into stark relief by way of the contrast of the experience of time absent thought. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 10, 2015 5:57:36 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. It may not be totally relevant here but I'll ask about presence. My experience with presence is like I am merged with the scenery and then it feels unlikely that one part of the picture snaps at an another part of it (would you call this as 'presence'?) and it does feel safe. However, always anxieties take over during the day. I mean it's not a belief (like "a vigilant mind is more effective about this or that") but most of the time a feeling of being overwhelmed which shuts the presence. It first starts as emotional constriction, then come the mental strategies... Overwhelmed in this sense: For example, someone whines to me too much.. Or during a late time walk I notice that someone walks too close to me, like a following... Will "understanding why I am not present" bring effortless, spontaneous presence? I try to understand but I don't understand the why. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2015 9:53:14 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. Thanks for the clarification (I wanted to look at the OP again so didn't reply directly to the clarification). I understand the view of effortlessness (and non-volition), and the view of the world they arise out of. Saying that to note I don't entirely agree with the OP (of course), but also in the sense that there is one { key} point missing (which might be implicit but, if so, should be made explicit). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 10, 2015 11:16:10 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. It may not be totally relevant here but I'll ask about presence. My experience with presence is like I am merged with the scenery and then it feels unlikely that one part of the picture snaps at an another part of it (would you call this as 'presence'?) and it does feel safe. However, always anxieties take over during the day. I mean it's not a belief (like "a vigilant mind is more effective about this or that") but most of the time a feeling of being overwhelmed which shuts the presence. It first starts as emotional constriction, then come the mental strategies... Overwhelmed in this sense: For example, someone whines to me too much.. Or during a late time walk I notice that someone walks too close to me, like a following... Will "understanding why I am not present" bring effortless, spontaneous presence? I try to understand but I don't understand the why. In my experience, generally speaking, there's nothing more likely than a social interaction -- even with a random stranger -- to stoke-up the defense mechanisms of mind. Any thought past the noticing of the inception of the strategy formation is an opportunity for a sort of on-the-spot dynamic self-inquiry. What is it that's coping? The coping itself isn't some sort of problem, but the less we see other people as problems or as means to an end, then the more of ourselves we see in them. What I've also noticed is that this tends to work in reverse as well -- the more they see of themselves in me. Most of that effect can be accounted for by the simplicity of the golden rule, but what's really going on isn't subject to apprehension by any such concept. That seeing ourselves in others is another way to state what the now is, so, why not always? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2015 11:40:13 GMT -5
Advice like what? Yes, it's a funny thang, though. As I see it, we have structured thinking based societies that virtually require thinking in certain circumstances in order to function. An example is technology based vocations. While I would never deny man's creative potential, how that potential expresses is determined by the paradigm of his society. We can, perhaps, envision a much more wholistic society integrated with the natural movements and cycles of nature which, while potentially highly sophisticated, may not require the cognitive intensity that ours sometimes does. Beyond that, what I've said on the OP applies to a great extent in highly technical problem solving. I'm a problem solver by inclination, (and an engineer) but my process involves very little of what we would call thinking. In the same way that we can stop the mind and 'look' in order to see through some illusion, we can also have realizations of a practical, technical matter by doing precisely the same thing with a different focus of consciousness. This is, in fact, the scientist's 'AHA!' moment. Oh, okay. I'd say the state of vigilance referred to in meditation is the same state of open, alert attention I'm talking about, but I don't call it vigilance. Instead, I used the term to describe a state of contracted thought focused on self protection. I see a difference between a state of flow, (the example we like to use is rock climbing) and a state of empty, alert attention in that in the former there is a contracted focus of attention. The rock climber is not in an expanded state of awareness, though we could say he is present and we could even say he is not thinking. The reason the rock climber enjoys that state is because he is not there. The absence of the personal self in the present is one desirable outcome, but I was addressing the need for self protection that ultimately justifies leaving that state of presence so that mind can get back to the job of running one's life properly. The point being that it's not mind's job to do that, and it's not qualified for it's position. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Feb 10, 2015 11:48:09 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. Is one disqualified from being in The Now by thinking, including thinking about the past or future, even though there seems to be nowhere else for that thinking to take place other than in The Now! amit |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2015 11:56:47 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. It may not be totally relevant here but I'll ask about presence. My experience with presence is like I am merged with the scenery and then it feels unlikely that one part of the picture snaps at an another part of it (would you call this as 'presence'?) and it does feel safe. However, always anxieties take over during the day. Sure, that's presence, and the anxious 'me' is not present in that state, as the 'me' is in thought. However, the mind will eventually reassert itself, and we're discussing why that is. I say there is an illusion at the core of it that can be seen through, and once seen through, there will be a spontaneous presence. (To 'practice' presence is to miss the point of why one is absent) The illusion is that a contracted focus of mind is more effective at preventing and resolving issues than an open, expanded, alert attention. It's a very practical thing. |
|
