More Present ?
“In the end, whether we call it “being more present” or “awakening to what is,” the invitation remains the same: to stop, breathe, and realize that the stillness you seek is already breathing you.”
If we define presence as a strict, absolute state (like a light switch: either "on" or "off"), then the phrase "to be more present" is logically inconsistent.
If presence is binary—either fully realized or entirely absent—there can be no middle ground, no "more" or "less." This perspective aligns with certain philosophical and spiritual frameworks (e.g., Advaita Vedanta, Zen Buddhism) where presence, enlightenment, or "awakening" is seen as an indivisible, non-dual state of being.
Let’s clarify this because a profound tension between language and absolute states is worth unpacking to see why the phrase persists despite its apparent contradiction.
1. The Absolute vs. Relative Debate
Absolute Presence:
If presence is defined as total, undivided awareness of the here-and-now, then by its nature, it cannot exist in degrees. You’re either fully present (aware of the moment without distraction) or not. In this view:
"More present" is a linguistic illusion: It conflates frequency (how often you return to presence) with intensity (the quality of presence itself).
Presence is timeless and unconditional: It’s not something you “build” over time—it’s a recognition of what already is.
This is the stance of many non-dual teachings. As spiritual teacher Rupert Spira often says: "You are already aware. You don’t need to become more aware. You need only to notice that you are aware."
Relative Presence:
In everyday language, however, people use "more present" to describe:
Increasing the frequency of moments where they notice they’re present.
Reducing distractions that pull them away from presence.
Cultivating habits (mindfulness, breathwork) that make it easier to recognize presence when it arises.
Here, "more" refers not to the state itself but to the conditions that obscure or reveal it.
2. Why the Phrase Persists (Even If It’s Technically Illogical)
Language is a tool for navigating human experience, not absolute truth. We use relative terms to describe progress toward ideals that, in their purest form, are absolute. For example:
Peace: "The world is becoming more peaceful" doesn’t mean peace is a spectrum—it means fewer conflicts obscure the innate absolute peace that underlies reality.
Silence: "The room got quieter" doesn’t mean silence has degrees—it means noise diminished, allowing silence to emerge.
Similarly, "being more present" is shorthand for considerations like:
"I want to notice presence more often."
"I want to spend less time identified with thoughts that veil presence."
It’s a concession to the dualistic (good/bad/big/small) human experience of feeling "closer to" or "farther from" recognition of what’s already here.
3. The Danger of the Phrase
It’s not simply a case of semantics—it’s practical. Framing presence as something to "achieve" or "increase" can:
Reinforce striving: The unaware ego co-opts spirituality, turning presence into a goal to attain, which ironically keeps us trapped in effort and future-oriented thinking.
Create self-judgement: “I’m not present enough” becomes a story that perpetuates the illusion of separation from presence.
This is why teachers like Eckhart Tolle emphasize: "You don’t need to seek presence. You need to release what blocks your awareness of it."
4. A Middle Way: Reframing "More Present"
If we redefine the phrase to align with absolute presence, it might look like this:
"More present" = "More aware of the presence that is already here."
"More present" = "Less identified with the mind’s distractions."
In this reframing, "more" doesn’t modify presence itself—it modifies our attention to what’s already true.
Conclusion: Two Layers of Truth
Absolute Truth: Presence is undivided, timeless, and ever-available. You cannot be "more" or "less" present—you can only recognize or overlook it.
Relative Truth: In daily life, we speak of "being more present" to describe the practical work of softening mental habits that obscure this recognition.
So, is the ‘ to be more present’ phrase an oxymoron? Yes, if presence is absolute. But language serves the relative world, where we’re all—as poet David Whyte writes—"walking through the noise toward the thing we want so badly to hear."
The Solution ?
Use the phrase as a finger pointing to the moon, not the moon itself. And perhaps retire it altogether in favour of clearer language:
Instead of "be more present," try something like "notice when you’re not here."
Instead of "practice mindfulness," consider "allow presence to reveal itself."
In the end, whether we call it "being more present" or "awakening to what is," the invitation remains the same: to stop, breathe, and realize that the stillness you seek is already breathing you.
