Another thriving personality, individualized, and wedded to specific opinions, beliefs and convictions, arguing at length, even preaching to us, to try to convince us they, and we, do not exist. A spectacle worth watching, indeed!
He is not preaching. He is answering someone's question. I have been in his presence and if you don't ask a question, he's got nothing to say and he keeps silent. He only speaks in the response to questions. Try taking responsibility for your negative reaction instead of putting it on the speaker. Your reaction is by definition yours. Why does this didturb you ? Why did you come here in the first place?
@@sanekabc I don't think a suffering man is worried about whether or not they can be present. They're probably much more focused on relief unless they have particular realizations into the nature of reality.
Saying that you "cannot be present" to others, expecting that they are "present" enough to understand what we are saying is pure nonsense. If language would not transmit anything, why would we talk, instead of remaining silent? Thought and language are forms of presence, ways of the cosmos to be present to itself. The problem here is a narrow understanding of what presence means, ironically expressed through language and thought.
Most people are looking for figurative truth in his language, but he is actually being quite precise and literal. He's saying presence cannot be achieved because it is the opposite of an achievement. That is why you cannot BE present, because no action can be taken to get there. Because presence does not exist in a "there". It is not an artifact of time or space. Nor is it an artifact of effort or will. A fish cannot swim around looking to find the water it is already swimming in. Once I had recognition of presence and was able to access it regularly, I realized that many of the spiritual teachings on presence are literal not figurative.
How can you not be present when you think you are present ? How can you not be present when you don’t think you are present. ? Why give thought so much importance that it can dictate if we are present or not. And who decides all of that. ? Isn’t it thought ! Don’t mystify people with gobbledegook.
If there is samadhi, if there is objectless pure awareness then you are in the moment. Awareness knowing itself is presence. He says you cannot be in the moment because there is a thinking process but if there is awareness alone there is no thinking process. That is also not knowing because there is no object to be known. But he then says there is living in not knowing, that there is a beauty to life, so who is the knower of that? Who is the experiencer of such beauty? The knower is that which appears as form from the formless which is one and the same, which is like water which is both ocean and wave. He cannot avoid bifurcating when even denying there is someone who is thinking thoughts he says these are not my thoughts. I'm not pretending to be a doer he says. You see the problem? It is ineffable and one can only remain silent to be as one is. He should have mentioned Peace and suffering which everyone can relate to. In comparing Christianity with Indian philosophy it is simply not true of him to say that for the Christian there is nothing to become, that it is less personalized than the Indian tradition. On the contrary if you are a Christian you are a sinner who is born with free will who is responsible for his own salvation. How much more personal can that get? The Indians have karma and predetermination which is a freeing mechanism from the constraints of personality.
I think it depends on which Christian theology is being followed. Christian belief in an omnipotent, omnicompetent God led to Calvinist predestinarianism followed by French Huguenots - sinners bound to sin like wheat on stoney ground...
“Only in your absence is there ultimate presence” JEAN KLEIN
If you are absent then ultimate presence can only be an imagined concept. It can only be real if you are there.
Another thriving personality, individualized, and wedded to specific opinions, beliefs and convictions, arguing at length, even preaching to us, to try to convince us they, and we, do not exist. A spectacle worth watching, indeed!
He is not preaching. He is answering someone's question. I have been in his presence and if you don't ask a question, he's got nothing to say and he keeps silent. He only speaks in the response to questions. Try taking responsibility for your negative reaction instead of putting it on the speaker. Your reaction is by definition yours. Why does this didturb you ? Why did you come here in the first place?
relax have some lavender tea
Who is the 'you' that is present? Isn't there just presence? You + present = duality.
"You" is presence.
You cannot be present? You cannot not be present because the present is all there is.
Tell that to a suffering man.
@@sanekabc The true self cannot suffer.
@@Valandor_Celestial_Warlock narrow minded response
@@sanekabc I don't think a suffering man is worried about whether or not they can be present. They're probably much more focused on relief unless they have particular realizations into the nature of reality.
He seems to be confusing being present with thinking about being present. They’re entirely different things.
Saying that you "cannot be present" to others, expecting that they are "present" enough to understand what we are saying is pure nonsense. If language would not transmit anything, why would we talk, instead of remaining silent? Thought and language are forms of presence, ways of the cosmos to be present to itself. The problem here is a narrow understanding of what presence means, ironically expressed through language and thought.
Most people are looking for figurative truth in his language, but he is actually being quite precise and literal. He's saying presence cannot be achieved because it is the opposite of an achievement. That is why you cannot BE present, because no action can be taken to get there. Because presence does not exist in a "there". It is not an artifact of time or space. Nor is it an artifact of effort or will. A fish cannot swim around looking to find the water it is already swimming in. Once I had recognition of presence and was able to access it regularly, I realized that many of the spiritual teachings on presence are literal not figurative.
How can you not be present when you think you are present ? How can you not be present when you don’t think you are present. ? Why give thought so much importance that it can dictate if we are present or not. And who decides all of that. ? Isn’t it thought ! Don’t mystify people with gobbledegook.
If there is samadhi, if there is objectless pure awareness then you are in the moment. Awareness knowing itself is presence. He says you cannot be in the moment because there is a thinking process but if there is awareness alone there is no thinking process. That is also not knowing because there is no object to be known. But he then says there is living in not knowing, that there is a beauty to life, so who is the knower of that? Who is the experiencer of such beauty? The knower is that which appears as form from the formless which is one and the same, which is like water which is both ocean and wave. He cannot avoid bifurcating when even denying there is someone who is thinking thoughts he says these are not my thoughts. I'm not pretending to be a doer he says. You see the problem? It is ineffable and one can only remain silent to be as one is. He should have mentioned Peace and suffering which everyone can relate to.
In comparing Christianity with Indian philosophy it is simply not true of him to say that for the Christian there is nothing to become, that it is less personalized than the Indian tradition. On the contrary if you are a Christian you are a sinner who is born with free will who is responsible for his own salvation. How much more personal can that get? The Indians have karma and predetermination which is a freeing mechanism from the constraints of personality.
I think it depends on which Christian theology is being followed. Christian belief in an omnipotent, omnicompetent God led to Calvinist predestinarianism followed by French Huguenots - sinners bound to sin like wheat on stoney ground...