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.

5 thoughts on “Living with Opposites

    • Hi Henrik, and thank you. It depends on what you’d like to perceive our supreme creator as. If you view the creator as an object then it would be spelled as god, otherwise without form or tangibility is God. In the quest of fulfilling the nature of our curiosity we measure “God” objectively by giving it a fixed form to match the limits of our ignorance. The irony is we take pleasure in thinking we know exactly who, or what God is. In my opinion, God should be viewed as a subject that has no definition, no guarantee to where life will lead you. We are products of the spill over of God’s spirit. Meaning, God and us share something in common.

      Having said that, 7 days wouldn’t have been defined as a weekly cycle if stargazers had not determined Earth completes its orbit around the Sun in 52 weeks. In the effort of our discoveries we are objectifying the subject of existence. 7 is a convenient number used to describe the plan in creating the world after a universal calendar is determined. If destiny took another turn, Earth could have taken 30 hours to complete its revolution. What matters is how we measure time, or what constitutes one day for instance. Going back, and forth between the adjustment of time and planetary movement we’ve made a practicable calendar that reveals a week has 7 days. The questions are;

      Was the number 7 determined before or after man knew of arithmetics?

      Perhaps, there has always been a 7 but not yet revealed. When unravelled, was 7 plucked out of thin air to suitably describe a circumstance?

      With all supremacy, why did God even need 7 days to create the world?

      You, and I are derivatives of the spirit of God. Has there ever been a hard, and fast rule that requires asking God for permission to speak? Scriptures were written that way, and prescribed as sacred. If you choose to pursue God in an objective manner you will live with the fairytale of Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden. But, all is well if you live by the spirit of it.

  1. Hi Henrik, and thank you. It depends on what you’d like to perceive our supreme creator as. If you view the creator as an object then it would be spelled as god, otherwise without form or tangibility is God. In the quest of fulfilling the nature of our curiosity we measure “God” objectively by giving it a fixed form to match the limits of our ignorance. The irony is we take pleasure in thinking we know exactly who, or what God is. In my opinion, God should be viewed as a subject that has no definition, no guarantee to where life will lead you. We are products of the spill over of God’s spirit. Meaning, God and us share something in common.

    Having said that, 7 days wouldn’t have been defined as a weekly cycle if stargazers had not determined Earth completes its orbit around the Sun in 52 weeks. In the effort of our discoveries we are objectifying the subject of existence. 7 is a convenient number used to describe the plan in creating the world after a universal calendar is determined. If destiny took another turn, Earth could have taken 30 hours to complete its revolution. What matters is how we measure time, or what constitutes one day for instance. Going back, and forth between the adjustment of time and planetary movement we’ve made a practicable calendar that reveals a week has 7 days. The questions are;

    Was the number 7 determined before or after man knew of arithmetics?

    Hi erhaps, there has always been a 7 but not yet revealed. When unravelled, was 7 plucked out of thin air to suitably describe a circumstance?

    With all supremacy, why did God even need 7 days to create the world?

    You, and I are derivatives of the spirit of God. Has there ever been a hard, and fast rule that requires asking God for permission to speak? Scriptures were written that way, and prescribed as sacred. If you choose to pursue God in an objective manner you will live with the fairytale of Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden. But, all is well if you live by the spirit of it.

  2. This was extremely interesting. It’s true that light exists to emphasize darkness and vice versa – one can’t exist without the other. I see the same reflected in my life too – it’s because of the bad times that I’ve been through that I’m able to achieve such extreme happiness when things go well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s