Living with Opposites

“Presence has no requirements. When we’re rooted in Presence, we’re no longer swayed by the changing circumstances of our lives” – Eckhart Tolle

Here is a statement made by Eckhart that I’ve picked up on Twitter. One must be careful on picking Eckhart’s brain especially when inserting own thoughts. What I am about to write in reference to Eckhart’s quote is based solely on my personal observation as well as opinions that are not intended to influence anyone who thought otherwise. “Presence” described by Eckhart is not referring to any kind of physical domain, or place rather a specific quality in awareness. “Presence” is a “point of return” where thoughts of the future, and past are retracted to a vantage point making emotional afflictions easy to pass off as an “observation”. On this plane, we don’t intervene with our thoughts.

Managing thoughts to validate a personal conviction will involve a flurry of exchange in duality. A single thought cannot serve its meaning without another to question it, as ego cannot realise itself without its opposing alter ego. Duality has long been studied since its postulation by the mythical Greek god of Hermes Trismegistus over 3,000 years ago, revealing life’s feature as a confluence of various opposing forms, qualities and opinions.

Duality is a feature of our existence, but an attribute to our lives. Our individuality is built either on battles of opinions with others, or ourselves (voices in our head) in order to fulfil a conviction. This is evident from my observation positing the assumption that our existence is fabricated from an incidental clash of conscience. Much like the theory of “Big Bang” conceived by Professor Stephen Hawking, or the making of Eve a complete opposite in attribute to Adam so both could bask themselves in each other’s glory. Was there a break up in the cosmic singularity? Did God wake up with a headache, or a nightmare?

So, we stand witness to our own existence with the inherited quality spawned from the effect of a dichotomous reality, but meant to be forged in union. We are in every sense a reflection of the character that creation took in making itself, a mirror image of our creator’s disruptive disposition. Disruptive doesn’t necessarily mean destructive although it can be. Disruptive paves the way for new, or untested ideas to keep the principle of “being” relevant by preserving its continuity. “Being” is a “state of preference” which is always in the flow contrary to “existence” that has already taken form. “…we’re no longer swayed by the changing circumstances of our lives” is recognising the dichotomy that we battle with in which without it we won’t know the difference not to be swayed. “Presence” is the continuum where life is orchestrated at will as the subject precedes over object. So, here I state;

“The presence is a flow of continuity which has no outcome that you can imagine”

“Outcome” in “Presence” is meant to be a process without punctuation. You are correct to think that your current representation in the physical state, and affairs is the product of past choices. Life has a way of giving out that impression especially with the first. In “Presence”, product, or life’s circumstance is transforming in every heartbeat initiating the measurement of time.

Continuity is simply a flow. Whether your contradictions are motivated outwardly, or a personal one, the experience resembles the game of “tug of war” where two opposing teams locked on a pulling match tugging on a rope to force either side to cross over the centre line to garner a win. “Tugging” back, and forth is a process of self-reflection that braces our spiritual confidence. In actuality, we are tugging onto hope. The game sets you up nicely into a cycle of start, stop, start, stop. In every interval, you’d pause to reflect on the outcome. To be in “Presence” the rope must be dropped only because a handshake is due.

If duality holds true to our existential feature and functionality, then awareness traverses between the “point of arrival” and a “point of departure”. If awareness can find its way to the seat of a vantage point it also can unsit itself from it which brings the opposing notion of the “Big Crunch” to attention. Conceived by Professor Hawking himself, “Big Crunch” is a possibility in countering the “Big Bang”. But, I doubt the “Big Crunch” would happen in the fashion thought by Hawking. The reason that draws me away from the “Crunch” notion is in the timing. Not time, but timing. “Big Bang” is a synchronised phenomena in contrast to the Biblical story where God made a man first then came a woman, was not synchronicity much less made the world in seven days. Then, Man conveniently named each day Monday to Sunday. Did God know about numbers before Man? I am beginning to suspect that the Bible isn’t a collation of holy scripts written in the “word of God’. It was written by men who thought they knew God. No matter, words are secondary to the spirit of God, the essence in which the Bible cradles.

I am guessing that the “Crunch” is already happening as it did by simultaneous response to the “Bang”. The synchronicity sets time in motion timing every expression of life into existence. The Devil exists to recognise God, and evil to define His goodness. Without duality, we can’t possibly know our place. All this time we are the eyes of creation. It’s about time we look back by being in “Presence” to watch God at rest.