Doesn't living completely in the present and not thinking about the past and the future also mean you shouldn't bother...

based and Sôphrosunêpilled. The West is the best.

>because he takes the rules of the game (philosophy) too seriously and devotes his entire life to it
What's the point of philosophy otherwise?
>The workaholic is too extreme, because he neglects everything else and doesn't really live
A zen master is not a workaholic though. He does what it takes to be enlightened. Why isn't this living, I don't get it. Your way is not the only way.

That's where you're wrong kiddo

>Disciple:What is this sense of differentiation?
>Master.: It consists in ideas like: “I am the witness of this; all that is seen is only insentient and illusory; here is the world; these are the individuals; this one is the disciple and the other, the master; this is Isvara, and so on.” This must go by a practice of non-duality. This practice is to remain non-dual, solid Being Knowledge-Bliss, untainted and free from thoughts of reality or unreality, ignorance or its illusory effects, and internal or external differentiation. This is accomplished by a constant practice of modeless samadhi. Here remains the experience of Brahman only. After leaving the sense of differentiation far behind, the attachment to non-duality must later be given up.
>Disciple: How is this to be done?
>Even this state must finally pass into untellable and unthinkable Reality absolutely free from modes and even non-duality. The Bliss of Liberation is only this and nothing more. When the mind is cleared of all latent impurities, it remains untainted, crystal-clear so that it cannot be said to exist or not to exist and it becomes one with Reality, transcending speech and thought. This unmoded, untainted fixity of the mind is known as Realisation or Liberation while alive.

- Advaita Bodha Deepika chapter 6

By living in the present I didn't mean you can't think about for future. It just means:
1. when you do something, you are totally doing it, not thinking of other things, not playing podcasts in the background etc.
2. you don't let the past influence your view on the present. For example, when you see someone, you don't see that person, but you see an image you have of this person. And this image is formed by past experiences. So the art would be by experiencing something, but because you're so completely in the present, you let go of the moment as soon as it passes away. This way you never clinch on images.
And when you have the goal to not be influenced by your own images, why would you want to be influenced by images of other people, philosophers in this case.

>Doesn't living completely in the present and not thinking about the past and the future also mean you shouldn't bother thinking about things past philosophers told?

Kinda, but kinda not. You can definitely get immersed in literature be it old or new, but getting worked up over it is pointless.
Also, you can think about the past and the future just fine. The problem lies in conceptualizing them as something they are not and giving them precendence over the present.

>And this image is formed by past experiences
So I'm not allowed to have interpersonal relationships?

>when you do something, you are totally doing it, not thinking of other things, not playing podcasts in the background
but WHY? why can't i multitask? sounds like autism
>you don't let the past influence your view on the present.
that's also dumb. the present is the product of the past. knowing the past helps to contextualize the present

sounds like self-help bs

>Doesn't living completely in the present and not thinking about the past and the future also mean you shouldn't bother thinking about things past philosophers told?
yes but this is not the dhamma, contrary to what tinch says and white buddhist too

my god what bullshit is that?
is that what they call Buddhism or some other whacky religion?

>the present is the product of the past
The present is only a product of the present.

kek what is this retarded bullshit?

I can tell you have low IQ.

>but WHY? why can't i multitask?
Why can't you give yourself totally to one thing? Are you afraid it might be boring? No wonder zoomers are always complaining about anxiety and depression.

>can't even tell that the past produces the present
>somehow he can tell an anonymous poster his intelligence quotient

You can have interpersonal relationships by seeing the person as he is and not as an image you have formed and that always differs from reality. Would probably be a better relationship.
>but WHY? why can't i multitask? sounds like autism
The brain can't multitask. It switches so fast between different things, that we just perceive it as happening at the same time.
>knowing the past helps to contextualize the present
It only helps keeping things the same as yesterday.

>Why can't you give yourself totally to one thing?
Why would I want to? Why would the human mind develop the capacity to undertake multiple lines of action if I'm just supposed to willfully regress to a vegetable like state
Are you afraid it might be boring?
Nah, I just don't see the point
>No wonder zoomers are always complaining about anxiety and depression.
I'm not a zoomer, and do you really think people, say, in the 1800s didn't multitask? lmao

>The brain can't multitask. It switches so fast between different things, that we just perceive it as happening at the same time.
proof?
>It only helps keeping things the same as yesterday.
that's clearly wrong. you can use that knowledge to more effectively change the present and work toward the future

>do you really think people, say, in the 1800s didn't multitask?
People in the 1800s didn't spend the day watching Netflix while playing videogames.

I don't do that either. Yet low and behold, I multitask

I bet you watch movies at 1.5 speed.

No. I hardly watch movies at all, and almost never listen to music. Definitely don't watch TV shows.

You sound like a pretty boring person.

Can't see how that's relevant to the discussion

>proof?
Basic neuroscience
>that's clearly wrong. you can use that knowledge to more effectively change the present and work toward the future
You don't have to undergo the complicated process of a change, when you don't clinch on the past in the first place

>Basic neuroscience
neuroscience can't refute empirical experience.
>You don't have to undergo the complicated process of a change, when you don't clinch on the past in the first place
that's retarded. if i have created a series of stressed interpersonal relationships due to past poor behavior i can't just fix it by being present in the moment. i need to reflect on what i did wrong in the past so i know exactly what needs to be rectified. there are countless other examples of where knowing the past is indispensable for dealing adequately with the present. stop falling for watered down eastern self help bs

>neuroscience can't refute empirical experience
PFFFT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

care to explain how that statement is wrong?

>empirical experience
kek
>if i have created a series of stressed interpersonal relationships due to past poor behavior i can't just fix it by being present in the moment
That wouldn't happen if you would have been conciously in the present from the beginning.
See, if you have to give a presentation in front of an audience for the first time, you will not know if you will succeed or not. But after that you will either think you're a good public speaker or you're a totale failure. And when you failed and have to give a second presentation, this time you will be nervous because the last one formed your image of yourself. Being nervous will make you a worse public speaker than when you were confident. Therefore your image of yourself formed who you are. That's basically self-fulfilling prophecy. And the more you carry this image the more it will manifest itself and the more complicated it gets to change.
So you created a series of stressed interpersonal relationships because after the first hurdle you already had this image of a relationship in your head and that formed your second relationship.

>That wouldn't happen if you would have been conciously in the present from the beginning.
that's not how real life relationships work retard. that's utopian thinking. even if everyone was in the present we would still have interpersonal problems and have to work them out.
>See, if you have to give a presentation in front of an audience for the first time, you will not know if you will succeed or not. But after that you will either think you're a good public speaker or you're a totale failure. And when you failed and have to give a second presentation, this time you will be nervous because the last one formed your image of yourself
this is a true observation, but your fallacy consists in thinking that it is thinking about the past as such which produces the problem and that this is solved by mental lobotomy in which you only stay in the present. it's actually cause by a particular way of thinking of the past, and the solution is to adopt a more constructive attitude toward the past not throwing it out.

>even if everyone was in the present we would still have interpersonal problems and have to work them out
No, because there would be no ego. All the problems that have to be worked out are basically the results of ego/pride/etc or to say it in other words: images you created and give relevance to, so you have to defend it.
>it's actually cause by a particular way of thinking of the past, and the solution is to adopt a more constructive attitude toward the past not throwing it out
How can you have the one without the other? Either you're living without regarding the time or you take everything time will throw at you.

>No, because there would be no ego. All the problems that have to be worked out are basically the results of ego/pride/etc or to say it in other words: images you created and give relevance to, so you have to defend it.
insane and naive utopian thinking. that's not how the real world works.
>How can you have the one without the other? Either you're living without regarding the time or you take everything time will throw at you.
there are different ways of relating to the past. get rid of the bad ones, keep the good ones. don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. you don't need to mentally lobotomize yourself. dude, stay away from the self-help junk it will fuck you up. im trying to help you here.

>insane and naive utopian thinking. that's not how the real world works.
I never claimed that most people live like this and in fact, people who do, don't bother changing everyone. So, pointless comment.
>there are different ways of relating to the past. get rid of the bad ones, keep the good ones.
>good
>bad
Bad things in the present happen because people hold them as an image in their head. They categorize, judge them etc. It exists. So how can it never not exist? You're keeping it alive.

Man, you need to come back to reality. That's not how the world works. This "mindfulness" nonsense you're ingesting is distorting your view of reality. It happens to countless people every year. It's a massive industry. Get out while you still can.

>This "mindfulness" nonsense you're ingesting
Mindfulness (sati in Pali) is just the western form of eastern tradition. It is in fact just a part of the equation, so I don't even care about that.
But I see you think of something different and I will not bother to discuss anymore with you about a topic you clearly know nothing about.

present produces the past and future
both depend on the present you cannot understand either without the reference of present