-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Being still
- Thread starter Acim
- Start date
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
It would depend on the motivation. 
Jedster
Flying through space
The longest sit I can remember is 13 hours.
One just has to remain centered as the eye of a hurrican.
It would depend on the motivation.
Let us go with whatever you consider 'supreme motivation.' Then how long?
You were completely still?
Does detention count?
Because as a teenager I stayed still in a room quietly for up to a solid hour doing nothing on any given day. Frequently in fact lol
Because as a teenager I stayed still in a room quietly for up to a solid hour doing nothing on any given day. Frequently in fact lol
Jedster
Flying through space
Yes. I was absorbed in meditation
Last edited:
Does jiggling count as sitting still?
Depends on exactly what you mean by "sit still"...
I can "be still" for sometimes many hours, but is shifting so you legs don't go numb not being still? Do you cease to be still if you stand up to stretch joints and muscles? If you tap your fingers or feet in time to the music in your head?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
IMO, it depends on what is meant by "you." For physically, stillness I would contend doesn't exist. And if it does, I would see that as matter of debate. General debate.
If you are not your body and are instead a Thought or collection of thoughts, then I do think (have experienced) stillness exists. But this is metaphysical or, IMO, spiritual debate taken to this level. Arguably the only level that actually exists (as reality).
At same time, I don't think (though don't know) that anyone that appears 'alive in a body' considers the atoms making up that body (particles / sub-atomic particles) to be 'who they are' (or who I am). Nor frames such things as 'my particles are....' (i.e. my particles are moving/vibrating especially fast/slow today).
All this (and a little more) is what I was considering when asking OP, but felt this information is widely known/understood among anyone that might respond to such an inquiry. I honestly do aim at "you are not your body" when asking such a question as I did in OP. And that body position and/or movement whether that be at macroscopic or microscopic level, is irrelevant to the inquiry. Which leads back to stillness of thought, for I understand (know) that this is who/what you/we are, or I am.
And yet, I recognize this makes for a wonderful debate, discussion. Tempted to tag all those that responded so far to 'catch them up to what OP thinks of own question' but do think it is plausibly up to each individual what they think is meant by 'being still.' Or is another aspect of the debate.
I don't even sit still when meditating. It's just really not good for your body. Being accustomed to the ache of sitting stationary for a long period of time isnt, imo, laudable. Just learning to ignore your body telling you to cut that out. If I do need to sit still I try not to make it longer than fifteen minutes unless I'm sleeping obviously.
Given what I said in post #13, do you see it (being still) as even possible for 'your body?'
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Blaise Pascal said:
I have no motivation to sit still. Plenty of time for being still when my body ceases to function.
Still debatable when "ceases to function" equals stillness. Actual stillness. Even sticking with notion of "you are your (dead) body."
At a molecular level? No. There's always particles vibrating about, even after you expire.
At that same level, is that "you?"