|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 17:26:22 GMT -5
Presence = opposite of absense = being in existence (compared to not being in existence as in being absent) = sat (sanskrit) = conscious noticing of being in exsitence = being alert/alert being(ness) I would argue that presence is absence. It is the absence of that which is time bound which is experience. Presence is not time bound. First two sentences incorrect. Last sentence correct. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 17:30:56 GMT -5
Maybe also the german word can be usefull: Anwesentheit = presense = An (on) Wesenheit (being(ness) = Being(ness) on = In manifestation in the physical realm and being aware of that Being aware of an object which is time bound must also be in the present of course. It is not possible to not be present, but when we talk about presence it can only mean being aware of being aware with or without an object. Everything correct except: "It is not possible to not be present". Anybody want to explain why this is Incorrect? (First sentence you corrected your earlier mistake, earlier post). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 17:51:45 GMT -5
Being aware of an object which is time bound must also be in the present of course. It is not possible to not be present, but when we talk about presence it can only mean being aware of being aware with or without an object. Your way of using language makes my point, Satch: Far too many assumptions. 1.) "Being aware of an object which is time bound must also be in the present of course." That is an assumption. It depends on how you define an object, doesn't it? Why is being aware of an object timebound? How do you know that to be true? 2.) "It is not possible to not be present..." That is an assumption. Actually it is a belief. 3.) ..."when we talk about presence it can only mean being aware of being aware with or without an object." This whole sentense is a complete load of meaningless drivel. Maybe the sanskrit translaters did a bad job in translating texts you have read. Who is/was your swami (sanskrit teacher), Satch? Just curious. This kind of using language is sloppy, belief-laden and contains a lot of assumptions. I study philosophie (eastern and western) for about 35 years by now, Satch. I'm no blondie. (1): satch didn't say being aware of an object is timebound. (The object is timebound, awareness is not. So the issue is slightly confused). That sentence by satch is correct. (2): Not an assumption, not a belief. It is a fact for most people. Anybody want to explain why? (ZD would probably know immediately). (3): Not meaningless drivel, satch is correct here. You have to know what he is referencing, that is, from the ~inside~ (meaning, you have to have-been there). (4): ("I study philosophy"..). Studying philosophy is abstract/conceptual. What satch is referring to is 'nuts and bolts' immediate. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 17:59:02 GMT -5
I don't think of presence and being present as one and the same. I think of presence as being synonymous with seeing, what see's. I think of being present as more of a focus thing, the more present you are the greater your field of vision is, which ironically is the same as being less focused. Being less present is a narrow field of vision, like seeing is only seeing through thought. After having said all that I can see how the two are in some way connected. A narrow focus is definitely a useful tool in the search for truth but in another sense is the very thing that keeps us identified. You corrected yourself, so can like (whole post), almost, tiny correction, "seeing, what's seen". Leave off "what's seen". (The answer involves something alteady mentioned, the: "Would anybody like to answer"?) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 29, 2017 18:04:16 GMT -5
Presence = opposite of absense = being in existence (compared to not being in existence as in being absent) = sat (sanskrit) = conscious noticing of being in exsitence = being alert/alert being(ness) Did you swallow a sanskrit dictionary?  The German post is much better. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2017 18:14:29 GMT -5
What does presence mean to you? How do you know when you are present? What insures presence? To me this thread is a good example of perspective. There is nothing anyone has said here that I disagree with, there are just many ways to understand this. I will offer another view to add to the mix but on another day I might say something different. So I would say there are only levels of presence. It is not possible to not be present, but one particular level of presence might say that it is possible to not be present. Equally there is another particular level in which the idea of 'levels' of presence is totally rejected. My experience is that, throughout the day, I experience different levels. I don't think there is an upper level, I think it just goes on and on,....not sure about the lowest level, maybe asleep or coma....I dont know. |
|
|
|
Post by penny on Jan 29, 2017 18:15:41 GMT -5
I don't think of presence and being present as one and the same. I think of presence as being synonymous with seeing, what see's. I think of being present as more of a focus thing, the more present you are the greater your field of vision is, which ironically is the same as being less focused. Being less present is a narrow field of vision, like seeing is only seeing through thought. After having said all that I can see how the two are in some way connected. A narrow focus is definitely a useful tool in the search for truth but in another sense is the very thing that keeps us identified. You corrected yourself, so can like (whole post), almost, tiny correction, "seeing, what's seen". Leave off "what's seen". (The answer involves something alteady mentioned, the: "Would anybody like to answer"?) Aw, but I didn't say "what's seen". Sdp likes whole post now? |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Jan 29, 2017 18:19:43 GMT -5
Your way of using language makes my point, Satch: Far too many assumptions. 1.) "Being aware of an object which is time bound must also be in the present of course." That is an assumption. It depends on how you define an object, doesn't it? Why is being aware of an object timebound? How do you know that to be true? 2.) "It is not possible to not be present..." That is an assumption. Actually it is a belief. 3.) ..."when we talk about presence it can only mean being aware of being aware with or without an object." This whole sentense is a complete load of meaningless drivel. Maybe the sanskrit translaters did a bad job in translating texts you have read. Who is/was your swami (sanskrit teacher), Satch? Just curious. This kind of using language is sloppy, belief-laden and contains a lot of assumptions. I study philosophie (eastern and western) for about 35 years by now, Satch. I'm no blondie. (1): satch didn't say being aware of an object is timebound. (The object is timebound, awareness is not. So the issue is slightly confused). That sentence by satch is correct. (2): Not an assumption, not a belief. It is a fact for most people. Anybody want to explain why? (ZD would probably know immediately). (3): Not meaningless drivel, satch is correct here. You have to know what he is referencing, that is, from the ~inside~ (meaning, you have to have-been there). (4): ("I study philosophy"..). Studying philosophy is abstract/conceptual. What satch is referring to is 'nuts and bolts' immediate. 1.) It depends on the definition of the term object. 2.) Bring him on. (ZD). 3.) I know exactely what needs to be known, if there is such thing as knowing. 4.) I don't care if Satch was refering to "nuts and bolts" immediate, because he did not say so in his drivel. Why doubt my "state" of ....what ever? Isn't that what Satch is dealing in? By using such anti-language? I'm just fine the way I express my doubts about Satch's expression as being the case. I'm in the materialist camp now. You can thank peeps like Satch, Andy, Source and Zendancer, etc. for that. And it feeeeeeeeels goooooooood! |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Jan 29, 2017 18:27:37 GMT -5
Non-dual language, as used around here and elsewhere, isn't understandable for anybody who has not studied that stuff for years, or even decades. I'm writing for those who don't have that much spare-time to do that.
Why do you watch movies? Isn't this usage of language good enough? Why having interest in characters, storys and tales? Come at me, eh.
"If you know that there is no such thing as enlightenment, you are enlightend." (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)
And I understand his pointers just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 29, 2017 18:51:48 GMT -5
What does presence mean to you? How do you know when you are present? What insures presence? There are pupils although not so bright yet are always present in school. They managed only to get 75 sometimes below that in the tests. While the others who were brighter than them get 80/90. Although smart hey are the habitual absentees in class. So when the final grading came and the pupils evaluated for promotion, the brighter pupils who were not always present their grades dropped to 70 and failed. The duller ones who were always present maintained their grades at 75 and passed. My view: God who is always present within makes the believer a believer/lover of God due to His constant Presence. Is God absent in your heart? If the answer is a Yes maybe God thinks you are brighter than Him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 21:19:22 GMT -5
Being aware of an object which is time bound must also be in the present of course. It is not possible to not be present, but when we talk about presence it can only mean being aware of being aware with or without an object. Your way of using language makes my point, Satch: Far too many assumptions. 1.) "Being aware of an object which is time bound must also be in the present of course." That is an assumption. It depends on how you define an object, doesn't it? Why is being aware of an object timebound? How do you know that to be true? 2.) "It is not possible to not be present..." That is an assumption. Actually it is a belief. 3.) ..."when we talk about presence it can only mean being aware of being aware with or without an object." This whole sentense is a complete load of meaningless drivel. Maybe the sanskrit translaters did a bad job in translating texts you have read. Who is/was your swami (sanskrit teacher), Satch? Just curious. This kind of using language is sloppy, belief-laden and contains a lot of assumptions. I study philosophie (eastern and western) for about 35 years by now, Satch. I'm no blondie. Of course what I say is drivel. Nothing I say can ever be true. The topic of discussion is presence. The way I choose to describe it makes no difference to me whatsoever. Remaining silent is just as good. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 29, 2017 21:46:53 GMT -5
Your way of using language makes my point, Satch: Far too many assumptions. 1.) "Being aware of an object which is time bound must also be in the present of course." That is an assumption. It depends on how you define an object, doesn't it? Why is being aware of an object timebound? How do you know that to be true? 2.) "It is not possible to not be present..." That is an assumption. Actually it is a belief. 3.) ..."when we talk about presence it can only mean being aware of being aware with or without an object." This whole sentense is a complete load of meaningless drivel. Maybe the sanskrit translaters did a bad job in translating texts you have read. Who is/was your swami (sanskrit teacher), Satch? Just curious. This kind of using language is sloppy, belief-laden and contains a lot of assumptions. I study philosophie (eastern and western) for about 35 years by now, Satch. I'm no blondie. Of course what I say is drivel. Nothing I say can ever be true. The topic of discussion is presence. The way I choose to describe it makes no difference to me whatsoever. Remaining silent is just as good.When a woman remains silent from above, the below talks. When the below is silent the above talks. So what happens if the above and the below of the woman simultaneously talks? What if a man above don`t talk. What is talking below? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 21:51:05 GMT -5
Of course what I say is drivel. Nothing I say can ever be true. The topic of discussion is presence. The way I choose to describe it makes no difference to me whatsoever. Remaining silent is just as good.When a woman remains silent from above, the below talks. When the below is silent the above talks. So what happens if the above and the below of the woman simultaneously talks? What if a man above don`t talk. What is talking below? Please excuse K, he forgot to take his med's |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 22:13:09 GMT -5
Of course what I say is drivel. Nothing I say can ever be true. The topic of discussion is presence. The way I choose to describe it makes no difference to me whatsoever. Remaining silent is just as good.When a woman remains silent from above, the below talks. When the below is silent the above talks. So what happens if the above and the below of the woman simultaneously talks? What if a man above don`t talk. What is talking below? Oh my! It's always about sex for you isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 29, 2017 22:22:04 GMT -5
When a woman remains silent from above, the below talks. When the below is silent the above talks. So what happens if the above and the below of the woman simultaneously talks? What if a man above don`t talk. What is talking below? Oh my! It's always about sex for you isn't it? Where do you think the Kundalini begins? Saccral plexus ( genitalia ) right? When it awakens? The stirrings of the below is initiated. So, a yogi to subdue moves it up solar plexus, to the thoracic plexus, to cardiac plexus, to the cervical plexus ( oral ) then to the medulla to the cerebral hemispheres and finally the pineal gland. The gland is open and you go into samadhi. What are we moving up from the genitalia to the brain. It`s the hormone testosterone. Yogis accumulating a lot of testosterone in their brains go bald. |
|
