What Are We Manifesting?

Written by Mathew Naismith

To feel good about oneself and the environment, one must first desist in feeling bad about someone else's self and their environment, otherwise all we would be doing is creating something that feels good on the back of what also feels bad. Look at it this way, if to be exceptionally positive takes an exceptional negative, wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to express an exceptional positive to denounce, overcome or escape from an exceptional negative in the first place? One begets the other; basically, one extreme creates an opposing extreme. Do we really want to create another reality built upon or created from it's opposite? 

So what kind of ideological concepts has our present reality created?

Firstly, I personally don't think it's wise to build or create realities based on their opposing opposites if we really want peace and love on Earth. Basing peace and love on it's opposite is only going to continue the trend of opposing energy forces, basically creating realities that one can't exist without the other or on the back of the other.

Many times have I come across people who have utter disdain for this reality, in turn, they have a desire to manifest a complete opposite of what they have disdain for. Is it wise to create another reality based on it's opposite, in other words create a reality based on conflict and critical judgment? What would our present conflictive realities consciousness want you to do? Be in conflict with it to continue the trend and create yet another reality based on conflict and critical judgment.

So opposing our present conflictive reality is doing exactly what this kind of reality creates, realities primarily based on conflict. Yes, for example, the ideological concepts of light and love don't seem to be within themselves conflictive, even though this kind of ideology was created on the back of a conflictive conscious reality. However, take this kind of energy out of it's protective comforting domain, it's own reality, it fails dismally. Only within it's own domain, within it's own energy, can the ideological concepts of light and love prevail. It's exactly like taking a fish out of the water, it's reality, and put the fish in it's opposing reality, it fails dismally to exist out of the water, it's reality.

Manifesting = Provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's behaviour, attitude, or external attributes or reveal its presence or make an appearance. 

Ideology = An orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation or an imaginary or visionary theorization.

So can we create a reality of light and love without a reality being created on the back of a conflictive reality?

Light simply means awareness and love acceptance of all of what is for what it is, this of course includes realities and the consciousness behind the creation of these realities. It's like a mother loving their child no matter what they do. Because these kinds of ideological concepts are based on disdain and an opposing energy source, it is obvious that ideological concepts, like today's light and love, is not based on awareness or a true sense of love.

A true sense of light and love thrives just as much out of it's own reality as it does in it's own reality, in certain circumstances even more because of the need of this kind of energy source within certain realities or energy flows. A mother/father can be at their best in dire times, way out of their comfort zone, we as a whole are no different. Another good example is nurses/doctors; they are at their best when out of their comfort zone, their normal reality, because that is where they are most needed. People like me are always out of our comfort zone, our own clicky (exclusive) groups and energy fields/realities, where we are most needed. 

Do we really need to get out of our comfort zone, our own reality, to make a difference?

We often believe by staying within our own exclusive group, our own energy field or safe zone, that we can make a difference through manifesting our own energy within our own group or even our own personal domain/reality and make a huge difference. I think if Mother Teresa and Florence Nightingale, for example, stayed within their own exclusive group or energy field/reality, they couldn't have made the difference they did; we at a personal and collective level are no different. What about Gandhi and Nelson Mandela and so on it goes. On a personal level, it would have been best for these people to stay within their own exclusive groups and within their own safe zone on a personal level, they instead saw a need to make real changes way outside their own comfort zone.

You simply cannot manifest a reality or influence a collective consciousness to change it's present reality while within your own comfort zone, your own exclusive group, change has always been manifested while within other energy flows. The reason for this is simple, a group opposing another group while within it's own reality will always be opposed, however, once within an opposing group to your own energy field, this is where one can make the biggest difference, the biggest manifestation.

There is one trick to changing what is within itself though, never demean or have disdain for what you are trying to influence while within that energy field, all this will change is your own energy field. A lot of people today are making this mistake in my mind, trying to change one group manifestation with their own group manifestation while in disdain of the group manifestation they are trying to change. Did Nelson Mandela try to change the colour of white people while at the same time having disdain for white people? All that Nelson Mandela wanted to change is the reality that white South Africans manifested from within. If Nelson Mandela had a huge amount of disdain for white people, instead of only seeing a need for change of what white people had manifested, he simply wouldn't have changed a thing.                  

Bending to the New Winds of Change

Written by Mathew Naismith

When the wind becomes a tree, is when the wind has to bend to the new wind blowing. As all things are governed by natural cycles, so are winds, one day a wind that the trees have to bend to or perish, the next day a tree that has to bend with a new wind blowing. Human existence is no different to the wind and the tree, it's all governed by natural cycles.

Once upon a time the Roman Empire was the wind that everything had to bend to or perish, now it's no more the wind or the trees. Of course we could say that the Catholic Church is the new wind from the Roman Empire era but it still had to bend like a tree to become the wind again as all things do.

Today, China is bending to the winds of the western mind, on the other hand North Korea isn't bending to this wind. Once it was the eastern mind within us all that was the wind, today it's the western mind. All must bend like a tree to this wind to once again become the wind. In regards to the present wind, it too will in the end become a tree or perish, of course if the wind becomes too strong, all will perish including the wind itself.          

The western minded coalition forces are today the wind, it's dominance over all else is felt throughout the world, as of any wind though, it too will have it's day to either bend to the new wind or perish. 

So is the new winds of change going to be of the western or eastern mind? Neither and simultaneously both. Once the eastern and western mind becomes one within us all, neither the western nor eastern mind will predominately dominate over the other, it's as though the yin and yang within us all will become one, whole, with no variations. This doesn't mean that the western mind (yang) and the eastern mind (yin) will no longer exist, it simply means they will be as one.

The strongest and wisest wind isn't the wind that blows everything down, the strongest and wisest wind is the wind that works in unison with the trees......Mathew G  

I thought anyone of the Christian and non-Christian faith might find the following interesting, the article links Christianity with Taoism to some degree.      

 http://francis-ritchie.com/jesus-and-the-tao/

There is something formlessly created

Born before Heaven and Earth
So silent! So ethereal!
Independent and changeless
Circulating and ceaseless
It can be regarded as the mother of the world

I do not know its name
Identifying it, I call it “Tao”
– Tao Te Ching Chapter 25

I just thought I would end this post with the following. It is wise to treat everything as being governed by a natural cycle as the wise are aware that one can't possibly overcome these natural cycles in the end, flow with the water, bend with the wind. This is probably why I try to stay away from judging anything negative or positive, what I call a black and white mentality; neither perception is flowing with the water, bending with the wind.    

 A man is born gentle and weak.

At his death he is hard and stiff.
Green plants are tender and filled with sap.
At their death they are withered and dry.

Therefore the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death.
The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life.

Thus an army without flexibility never wins a battle.
A tree that is unbending is easily broken.

The hard and strong will fall.
The soft and weak will overcome.

- Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 76

A New Wind Blowing

Written by Mathew Naismith

As a tree in balance with the wind will do, it will bend with the wind. As China has done and North Korea hasn't done, China has bent to the wind, the wind of the western mind, however, there is another wind blowing, a wind that the western mind wind must also bend to or pass by.

To put this into perspective, I have inserted a reply I gave to certain people on a forum. Knowing what is and isn't bullying and abuse, it was obvious a fair amount of abuse and bullying was going on, on this forum, I simply related this abuse and bullying holistically to the western mind imbalances and weaknesses. As I stated in the following, this has nothing to do with judgment or ridicule of a singular person or people. If I am to awaken to my own weaknesses and acknowledge them, I must also be fair and honestly look at other people and other groups who are obvious within their own weaknesses, after all, it's all as one. If I can do this void of judging a negative or positive, bad or good, it's simply not judgment but honest observation void of the biases of negative and positive, good and bad.

     

___________________________

This will be my last interaction on here unless I receive a response to this interaction.

The coalition forces are obvious within their dominance, their bullying other cultures into submission, of course to do this; one has to point out the weaknesses within these other cultures while at the same time totally ignoring one's own weaknesses. Bullying of course takes one to go into another cultures or persons domain, this is the same in going onto someone else's post to bully them into submission.

As I have previously given written material to confirm, the western mind will at all cost avoid looking at it's own weaknesses, instead choose to focus on it's strengths. If you look honestly at the coalition forces, are they also not doing this? When you go into other people's countries to bully these people into submission under false pretences, Iraq was a prime example of this, and on top of this pilfer their natural resources, is this not of the western mind void of the balance of the eastern mind?

It is natural for a mind, primarily of the western mind, to become dominating and bully everything that questions it's own weaknesses into submission. When we look at Libya who were well on the way to creating their own monitory system, which showed weaknesses within the western monitory system, it was inevitable that the western mind of the coalition forces were going to act through force. This is psychologically called projective abuse.

What are the similarities between the coalition forces dominance and certain people's reactions on this site?

At no point have these people admitted that they don't like their views put to the question. The fact they don't like my views that quite often put their own views and motives in question, it is obvious of what mind these people are primarily expressing. Of course the western mind, to the bitter end, will not want to look upon it's own weaknesses, instead prefers to look at other people's weakness just like the coalition forces. When I look at other people's weaknesses, I am also looking at my own, however, we must do this but void of bias.

This has nothing to do with judgment or ridicule of a singular person or people. If I am to awaken to my own weaknesses and acknowledge them, I must also be fair and honestly look at other people and other groups who are obvious within their own weaknesses, after all, it's all as one. If I can do this void of judging a negative or positive, bad or good, it's simply not judgment but observation void of the biases of negative and positive, good and bad.

To awaken, one must look at the whole as a whole and observe that whole as one, this means pointing out the weaknesses within the western and eastern mind no matter what form it takes. In saying this, it is virtually impossible for the western mind to do this impartially when void of the balance of the eastern mind gives to the western mind. The western mind, void of the eastern mind, will be naturally dominant and bully everything else that looks at it's weakness to submission.

The current wind is western minded, we must bend to this wind, the Chinese did just that but the North Koreans haven't. There is however a new wind blowing, a wind of both western and eastern origin, within this, there will be balance and the absence of one mind trying to dominate the other mind. Basically, a balanced consciousness void of conflict.

Simply put, there is way too much western minded dominance on this site for me; the deliberate avoidance of looking at one's own weakness is too evident. The new wind blowing is anything but what is expressed here, in my mind anyway, no offence intended.           

Adding Fuel to the Fire

Written by Mathew Naismith

I wrote the following for a forum as it seems a number of people on this forum simply look at imbalances as being faulty or negative. In my view, to judge imbalances and the realities these imbalances create faulty or negative/toxic, is a huge mistake as it only adds fuel to the already existing fire.

____________________________

So how are imbalances not seen as something faulty or negative?

Imbalances are needed to create a chaotic reality, you can't create a chaotic reality out of balance because chaos needs opposing forces to exist; there are simply no opposing forces within a true sense of balance for all works together as one.

A tree that bends with the wind is in balance with the wind. A tree that doesn't bend with the wind is imbalanced with the wind; one isn't opposing, the other is opposing.

What occurs when we oppose a reality, are we like the bending tree or the tree that opposes or is in conflict with the wind?

Bending with the wind entails one to exist within the present reality void of conflict, is critically judging a reality negative or faulty bending with the wind? No, it's the tree that is in conflict with the wind because it won't bend with the wind. Judging imbalances as being faulty/negative is simply feeding the wind more energy by making it more destructive. Soon enough the tree in conflict against the wind will be destroyed creating even more chaos within a reality, not less.

Yes, a strong wind can create a lot more chaos than the strong wind represents in the first place if it meets other opposing forces of energy, our chaotic reality is no different.

So we oppose this chaotic reality by judging it faulty/negative, this is of course in relation to ourselves who we have deemed positive. In this case the positive becomes an opposing force to judged negatives such as imbalances and what realities imbalances create. The tree is no longer bending with the wind and is noticeably opposing the wind thus creating even more chaos, not less.

Now, is love and light or positive thinking the bending tree or an opposing tree to the wind? We would of course say an opposing tree as it's against the wind that we have judged faulty/negative, in actuality by opposing the wind we have given the wind more energy. We have ultimately surrendered our energy to the wind in opposition making the wind more destructive, chaotic. This is simply adding fuel to the fire.

A chaotic reality needs fuel/energy to sustain it's existence, by judging a chaotic reality simply faulty/negative gives it it's fuel it needs, not just to exist but to expand on it's existence. The chaotic reality, the fire, is roaring out of control, it's expanding at a phenomenal rate, why, because we keep feeding the fire the fuel it needs to exist and expand by simply staying rigid, in opposition, to the wind.

So why aren't chaotic realities based on imbalances not faulty/negative? Chaotic realities need imbalances and opposing energy forces to exist, without these, the fire will simply burn itself out for lack of fuel. Is it negative that realities need imbalances to exist? If you think it is negative, all you are doing is giving chaotic realities the energy they need to exist. Imbalances are a positive for chaotic realities to exist, seen as all realities have a right to exist; we must learn to bend with this like the tree to the wind.

The universe is an exceptionally violent destructive chaotic place, but it's also exceptionally harmonious, constructive and peaceful as well. Is all that is violent, destructive and chaotic negative within the universe? So if our chaotic destructive reality is faulty/negative, what is our sun that is a lot more violent, destructive and chaotic? Our reality is what it is, simply a reality we keep adding fuel to and this is exactly why I stay away from judging what is or isn't negative of positive because all I would be doing is adding fuel to the fire.

Love yes, but not in opposition, bend with the wind.......

Supplement: In my younger days, I had a particular experience with a number of entities that fed on fear, all I did is to not be in opposition to them, in effect disallowing the energy they sought to feed off of. I was neither negative nor positive and this is the real trick, I simply stopped feeding their fire by neither being in opposition nor surrendering to their energy.                    

The Mindless Western Mind!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

It was said to me recently in a discussion on the western and eastern mind that the western mind is controlling or maybe even of no mind. Considering that the yang and yin are within each other so is the eastern and western mind, one is never not of the other to one extent or another, it is therefore unlikely that the western mind is of total control and/or mindless. The following replies I gave to other people on this subject will explain this further.

The western mind, being of the greater ego, will of course judge someone like me stating that the western mind is mindless is judgmentally egotistic, however, the eastern mind observes this as simply pointing our an obvious weakness within the western mind itself. In saying this, as the western mind has it's weaknesses, so does the eastern mind. The difference is in that the eastern mind will acknowledge and deal with it's weaknesses, this is different to the western mind that primarily focuses on it's strengths while ignoring it's weaknesses.

_______________________________

Interesting Chinwhisker, this is probably why I relate Christianity and Hinduism, in the raw form, to be of both western and eastern mind, yin and yang, however, I only equate Buddhism to yin, the feminine, the eastern mind.

To me: Eastern mind = yin + feminine + of lesser ego

            Western mind = yang + masculine + of greater ego

A balance brings peace, God's kingdom, where an imbalance brings chaos, man's kingdom.

_______________________________

I also wrote the following reply on questioning the bible and the mindlessness of the western mind. It was interestingly mentioned that the western mind is of control or of no mind.

_______________________________

+Chinwhisker  It's all to do with how one is conditioned to read the bible, however, as I have found out,  prayers have been changed over time to reflect a different stance, is the bible the same?

If one is all ego, can we equate this to no mind? By destroying the very thing one relies on for it's existence to feed it's ego, I would say this is of no mind. 

China has destroyed it's natural environment mainly because of western influence through becoming more westernised.  Yes, I would say it's fair enough to call the western mind mindless.

 _______________________________

Primarily focusing on, for example, positive thinking or love and light, is focusing on our strengths while noticeably ignoring the weaknesses. A good example of this is of children being abused in every way, this is ignored by positive and love and light people because it's too negative or toxic to address. It's a weakness that is plainly ignored. If half the people in the world spoke against this kind of abuse, a lot of children would be saved from abuse, instead, the western mind focuses on itself and it's own strengths, not it's own weaknesses. By ignoring these weaknesses because they are not of love and light or positive, allows these weaknesses to flourish, in actuality that is exactly what is presently occurring.

I should mention here that stating Buddhism is equated to the feminine (yin) and not also the masculine (yang) is in reference to it's philosophies. I believe that Buddhism came about for a need of a philosophy and an awareness to balance out life as a whole that was and still is primarily of the masculine. Even though Buddhism is of a religion as well as of philosophy, Buddhism wasn't meant to be followed or used in the same way as most ideologies. I believe Buddhism should be used in conjunction with other ideologies, not in opposition, a lot of western people following Buddhist philosophies, in my mind, are using Buddhism in opposition to other ideologies, not in conjunction.

It's funny to think it's the eastern part of the western mind that observes these weaknesses as the western mind is unable to. Consider this; can a man (yang) give birth? It's the same as the western mind being unable to address it's weaknesses, it needs the eastern mind to do this. Void of the eastern mind, the western mind can indeed be too controlling and mindless by primarily focusing on the ego, the outer world instead of the inner world or self.

_______________________________

Supplement:

I suppose the way we are looking at past lives is more western than eastern.

At times translation between western and eastern is easy, at other times virtually impossible. I don't think everything eastern can be successfully translated into western and probably visa-versa. Language is one barrier but so is the substance or meaning. Considering that the eastern and western mind looks at things in quite a different way a lot of the times, this figures.

I was talking to a bloke from India about the bhagavad gita, he simply said it's virtually impossible to convert the bhagavad gita to English, you lose too much of it's truer meaning. I don't think western language has as much inner depth and meaning as eastern languages. In saying this, I think the old English language has more depth than today's English; I'm not sure on this though.   

The Eastern and Western Mind

Written by Mathew Naismith

As we become more integrated and communicative around the world, I think it's essential we become aware of the differences between how we think in regards to other people of different cultures. At times the difference can be huge and at another times quite simular. Of course with the dominance and control of the western mind on the rest of the world, the differences in how we think is diminishing, sadly, eastern people are thinking more inline with western thinking.

I say sadly because it is obvious from the below information that the western mind is more dominating and controlling, even at the expense of the environment to it's own detriment. You have got to wonder, are more western minded people trying to understand eastern thinking to bring balance and a moderated existence back to the world? I should also mention, just because you are living under a western or eastern influence, you can still think and exist to the contrary depending on the influence one wants to exist under.

_________________________

https://www.slideshare.net/adonissfera/east-and-west-thinking-pattern

Extract: The West has consequently developed a materialist science that is focused on the outer world--which it endeavours to control and exploit. In Asia, where most religions have arisen, consciousness has been directed inwardly to understand the essential nature of life.

The Westerners worked longer on the stuff they were told they had aced the first time. The Easterners concentrated on the areas they thought they had botched. Students from the West—where the cult of self-esteem reigns supreme—wanted a tummy rub. Students from the East were more concerned with fixing their blind spots, becoming well-rounded. The Westerners polished up their strengths while the Easterners addressed their weaknesses.

https://sureshemre.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/eastern-and-western-thought-patterns/

Extract:

§                  Patterns of attention and perception, with Easterners attending more to environments and Westerners attending more to objects, and Easterners being more likely to detect relationships among events than Westerners.

§                  Basic assumptions about the composition of the world, with Easterners seeing substances where Westerners see objects.

§                  Beliefs about controllability of the environment, with Westerners believing in controllability more than Easterners.

§                  Tacit assumptions about stability vs. change, with Westerners seeing stability where Easterners see change.

§                  Preferred patterns of explanation for events, with Westerners focusing on objects and Easterners casting a broader net to include the environment.

§                  Habits of organizing the world, with Westerners preffering categories and Easterners being more likely to emphasize relationships.

§                  Use of formal logical rules, with Westerners being more inclined to use logical rules to understand events than Easterners

§                  Application of dialectical approaches, with Easterners being more inclined to seek the Middle Way when confronted with apparent contradiction and Westerners being more inclined to insist on the correctness of one belief vs. another.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Asian-Thinking-Vs-Westerner-Thinking:-The-Cultural-Differences-and-Inferences-of-East-and-West&id=5671780

Extract: We can find the most striking difference in Asian and Western way of thinking. When Asian thinking aims for harmony, Western thinking strives for order. This is because the basic philosophy of Western people is based on the concept of liberty, free market economic system or liberalization of economic system. On the other hand, Asians do not give much importance to the aspects of free competition of the economic system. They are concerned more with the equal distribution of income or solidarity in helping each other among their communities, thereby assuring an egalitarian society.

If your also into the philosophical differences of views, you might like the following as well.

http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/cultures_east-west-phylosophy.html

Extract:

Broadly, speaking,

Western society strives to
find and prove "the truth",

while

Eastern society accepts the truth as given and
is more interested in finding the balance.

Westerners put more stock in individual rights;

Easterners in social responsibly.

                __________________________________

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

This is interesting stuff. I realise more clearly now why the western mind has problems with people like me, we point out where we can become more aware where the western mind only desires to focus on where they are aware.

Another example is standardisation. The western mind tries to standardise everything so everyone standardises when it is obvious the eastern mind doesn't. How many western people standardise spirituality with awareness? Of course to an eastern mind, spirituality and awareness are obvious bed fellows; there is simply no standardisation because there is no expression or motion of control unlike the western mind.

Another example is when the western mind ostracises or has disdain for people for having their own views, especially when these views are pointing out a lack of awareness. To the western mind, pointing out things like this is being critical, to an eastern mind, all one is doing is pointing out where one is lacking awareness. I am often ostracised/blocked on forums by the western mind for pointing out our short falls on my own posts; it's a typical western mind reaction.

Us westerners, in my mind, need to be more aware of our own short falls of the western mind, but of course the western mind only desires to be aware of it's grandeurs, it's strengths not it's weaknesses, this of course is it's weakness. 

I should point out that the eastern mind can be influenced by the western mind to become more of a western mind and visa-versa.   

Balance Creates Love

Written By Mathew Naismith

To me, a true sense of balance creates love through a natural process in states of balance, the reason I think this is explained in the following post I posted on a forum. Balance/moderation is simply bliss which creates a sense of love of everything void of bias or prejudice. A moderated thought process negates all extremes thus creating a true sense of balance that then creates a true sense of love.

As we go within, extremes have less of an influence over us, the extrication of these extremes are simply replaced with a sense of love. The reason for this is simple; extremes denote imbalances and lust/desire, by becoming less influenced by extremes bring balance which allows a truer sense of love to influence us instead of extremes. Influences from extremes are simply replaced by the influences of love.    

_______________________

This is interesting, is a true state of balance of divine consciousness (spirit) or human consciousness (mind)? 

Considering that humans have always and probably always will express extremes, it is unlikely a true state of balance is of human consciousness; it's probably why human consciousness struggles to maintain some kind of balance in life.

When we presume and perceive that divine consciousness is love and that love is above all else, is this not an expression of an extreme. It's very human to desire the opposite of what one is existing in, especially if one is not physiologically happy with their present environment.

Consider this, is not saying that divine consciousness is primarily of love not stating an absolute? If we took away all the love and hate within the world, all we would be left with is bliss, the reason for this lies within these extreme expressions. There is no true sense of balance within extreme expressions, in one trying to over power the other all the times, a true sense of balance simply can't exist within such an existence.

So why do we perceive that divine consciousness is only of an extreme such as love?

Psychologically looking at this, human nature perceives what it desires to be of, not what it doesn't desire to be of, especially if it has any kind of disdain (contempt) towards it's present environment. It is simply natural for humans to desire something to be what it's not just to escape from its present environment.

It is natural when a state of true balance exists bliss and love are present, however, when a state of imbalance exists, chaos and hate are present and naturally so. So is divine conciseness (spirit) primarily of and expressive of love or balance?  If the spirit within all things was of an extreme, everything would also express and be of extremes but there simply not.

So if everything of the spirit within all things is balance, why isn't everything of balance?  Where you have yin and yang, is where you have balance but you also have imbalance, it's simply a natural law of existence as a whole.

Human represents imbalance where divine consciousness represents balance. To me, we presume too much while collectively in a state of chaos and mayhem. The divine consciousness, unlike ourselves, is not of an extreme of any kind, we simply perceive it to be so because of what we psychologically desire.

As of many Eastern teachings teach, balance/moderation is the key, not love.

“Simplicity, patience, compassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in actions and thoughts, you return to the source of being.
Patient with both friends and enemies,
you accord with the way things are.
Compassionate toward yourself,
you reconcile all beings in the world.” 
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

 “Your hand opens and closes, opens and closes. If it were always a fist or always stretched open, you would be paralysed. Your deepest presence is in every small contracting and expanding, the two as beautifully balanced and coordinated as birds' wings.” 
― Jalaluddin Rumi, The Essential Rumi

You can be still and still moving. Content even in your discontent.

Ram Dass

Intuition, a More Conscious Consciousness

Written by Mathew Naismith 

 Is our intuition more consciously conscious and aware than our human consciousness? Is our dream state more consciously conscious than our awakened state? Considering the dreams I have experienced myself, this could well be the case. In relation to intuition, I have not myself experienced any significant expansion of consciousness intuitively but I have read of a number of cases where you could definitely say intuitiveness is more aware therefore more conscious.

In saying that I have not significantly experienced an expanded conscious state intuitively is not entirely true, I have made a number of correct predictions in my life. This on it's own doesn't qualify for me to say that intuitiveness is more consciously expanded to what we know to be a conscious, an awakened and aware state, however, in conjunction with other people's experiences, I would be comfortable to say intuitiveness is far more consciously aware than what we normally deem as being consciously aware.

Of course in saying all this, intuition isn't known for it's reasoning or observation therefore consciousness, I of course don't agree to this view altogether. I wrote the following on a forum.    

______________________________

Consciousness: An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation, also meaning, Having knowledge of, a knowingness.

Cognition; is the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning.

When we have a gut feeling or intuitive insights, we are not being cognitive, we are simply expressing intuitive insights, of course intuition isn't suppose to be of observation as well as reasoning. I think intuitive observation is made on a different plain or dimension to the physical plane/dimension.

This is consciousness even if our human consciousness is unaware of this, in actuality intuitive states are probably more aware and even more conscious than our human state of consciousness.

What about the collective consciousness, is this not more conscious than our human state of consciousness? The human state is often referred to as a dream state for very good reasons, it's only aware of what it's aware of through observation and reasoning which limits it's consciousness. Is human consciousness truly conscious or is our intuitive state more conscious than our human consciousness?

The human psyche isn't conscious because of the limitations of human consciousness, this of course is governed by it's awareness which is highly limited. What would occur if we detached ourselves from our present human awareness? We would simply free ourselves, our consciousness, from these limitations, we would in turn be more aware not less aware. A number of spiritual practices prove this is the case.

So when I usually make reference to consciousness, it's not of human consciousness I speak of but a much more conscious consciousness. I am often aware of my consciousness observing myself observing myself in certain states of consciousness, the funny thing is my ego doesn't always like what is being observed, it's a laugh really.

I think the human psyche and it's consciousness isn't as conscious as it thinks it is.

________________________

Is our conscious more consciously aware than our subconscious? The following explains why it's not and in actuality it's our subconscious that is more consciously aware. 

http://www.evsc.net/research/intuition-subliminal-perception-and-the-subconscious    

Extract: What I find highly intriguing though, is the fact that our subconscious mind has access to a much faster and more detailed library of knowledge than our conscious mind does. Studies show that our subconscious senses at a higher resolution (Small Difference in Sensation, 1884) and at a higher sampling rate (Mere Exposure Effect, 1980) than we are aware of.

Within 1-2 seconds intuition can tell you if a person might be lying to you, if a chess game might be lost or if a situation might become dangerous. It tells you in the form of a gut-feeling, delivering the final conclusions of a long debate without revealing any of the rational behind it. It relies on your unconscious picking up on cues in the environment, on discovering micro-expressions on someone’s face, on comparing situations to hundreds and thousands similar ones housed in your memory and even digs into genetically and biologically hard-coded instincts. 

________________________

Now consider a consciousness outside human influence, outside human conscious limitations of the brain, now consider the intuition from a mind outside these human limitations. What we call our conscious state is far less consciously aware than we could ever imagine, of course this is going to be hard to imagine for a consciousness with so many limitations and so consciously unaware.

When spiritual people say they have become enlightened, they mean to say they are more consciously alive and aware than ever before, of course enlightened means becoming more consciously aware than before. You could also say enlightenment is also an awakening, an awakening from a conscious state that is in actuality anything but consciously aware. 

Consciousness and Awareness

Written by Mathew Naismith

We often hear the phrase conscious awareness, one not being without the other and one before the other by no mistake. It's like the perception of God or spirit; it's by no mistake that there is a lot of reference made in numerous ideologies to God and spirit before and in reference to man's consciousness. You don't have to be a believer of God or spirit to realise that one comes before the other and is in reference to the other.

However, there is reference or beliefs that awareness is the ultimate state therefore awareness comes before and is not in reference to consciousness in this ultimate higher state of non-consciousness. Ever heard of the phrase what is above is also below? Try being humanly aware of your environment void of being conscious, this is the below, the same is with the above. There is always a consciousness behind awareness no matter how still and silent this consciousness might be.

Because the ego is of motion and can only relate everything to motion to be able to comprehend it, comprehending a pure aware state void of motion is for the ego one thing, comprehending anything beyond this state would be insurmountably incomprehensible. Of course for certain ideologies to comprehend a consciousness beyond this pure aware state would be making reference to a God, a consciousness and a creator of all things. Being the ego the way it is when conditioned to certain specific ideologies, this of course has to be refuted or ignored by the ego.

I am not religious myself but I can see that the perception of God makes reference to a consciousness behind all awareness, no matter how still and silent that consciousness might be. The perception of God also makes reference to a true state of oneness, being that the perception of God directly relates to a true state of oneness and being that God is all of what is through the spirit within all things. It's important to note that this oneness doesn't exclude the ego, motion or time through denouncing them as simply being an illusion.

We ourselves are not able to create anything without being first conscious of what we are going to create, what is above is also below, is this not also for the above as it is for the below? Don't misconstrued me here, I am not advocating that everyone should now believe in a God or a consciousness before awareness, all I am portraying/advocating is that the perception of God makes direct reference to a consciousness before awareness, meaning, there is always a consciousness first and foremost before a state of awareness can exist. I think the perception of God or a consciousness before awareness is by no mistake.

When you look at atheism, do not atheists also believe/know that a consciousness comes before awareness? This is of course excluding Buddhist atheism where pure awareness or nothingness comes before consciousness. You could also question, what is consciousness without awareness, how can a consciousness exist without being aware?

Consider this, what is man's consciousness until it's physically expressed? It's not exactly motionless but it's not of full motion either until physically expressed. What usually make us aware? Motion, no matter how little or great that motion may be. All of man's awareness is brought about by motion, this is the below now is this not then the same for the above?

All this means is that awareness relates to motion but the consciousness behind awareness is not necessarily of motion. A state of pure awareness is motionless because the awareness of everything negates motion. Why is there so much motion around us? Because we are not aware of this motion before it's expressed as a motion, the only way motion can exist is through an unaware state of consciousness thus creating motion. In this case awareness or lack of full awareness has limited consciousness to a finite existence resulting in awareness becoming a motion.

A consciousness of full enlightenment/awareness negates motion by simply being aware of everything. Would we still be warring if we were truly aware? By being limited to certain awareness specifics creates motion where a truly enlightened consciousness simply neutralises the motion within awareness. It's the consciousness behind awareness that determines if awareness is going to be of motion or not.

So can consciousness exist without awareness?

How aware is a micro-organism of it's own existence and of it's environment as a whole? It's simply not, however, are we not more aware of micro-organisms these days? You see, a consciousness is still conscious of a micro-organisms existence, is it not also possible that humans are also in the same situation as a micro-organism, when only aware of themselves and their immediate environment to one extent or another?

Human existence (motion) is entirely governed by our environment, the environment comes first and then human existence, why then do we put ourselves above, our awareness above, our environment that determines our whole existence? Even within our own existence, a consciousness comes before and is the creator of our own existence.

Consciousness is simply unable to exist without awareness as awareness is unable to exist without consciousness, it's just that consciousness can either express awareness as a motion or not. It's consciousness that expresses awareness as a motion as it is consciousness that quietens awareness to the extent of awareness becoming totally motionless. It's the awareness within consciousness that creates motion; consciousness is completely motionless until consciousness becomes aware of awareness in motion.

As we can quieten our own consciousness through various techniques, consciousness as a whole is more likely to be able to quieten it's own consciousness through simply being aware of the motionlessness of awareness. All awareness is of motion until quietened by consciousness, within this, all there is, is pure awareness or a state of consciousness void of motion.                 

Infinite and Finite Ideologies /Philosophies

Written by Mathew Naismith

Before considering following an ideology and or philosophy consider this, which one's are limiting and which one aren't. A good example of this is the ego limiting or liberating       physically and through it's ideologies and /or philosophies. Is one set of ideologies and /or philosophies stifling/limiting to all other ideologies and /or philosophies within an ideology/philosophy?

Can an ideology/philosophy be infinite in nature if it has limits within it's ideologies and philosophies? The answer of course is no as all limitations are of the finite and not of the infinite, infinite simply refers to which that is limitless where's finite refers to which that is limited. Do we want to be governed by what is finite or infinite in nature? Considering that human consciousness is limited and that divine consciousness is limitless, we need to make a choice which one we want or even need to be governed by.

Is it wise to be governed entirely by an ideology/philosophy that is infinite in nature while existing in an existence that is governed by finite consciousness?

Infinite consciousness simply means there are no limitations within the expressions of this consciousness; this consciousness therefore is able to be expressed in a finite existence. However, finite consciousness is unable to be expressed within an infinite consciousness because of it's limitations. You simply can't limit yourself to human perspectives within divine consciousness because divine consciousness is divine because it's unlimited (infinite) nature.

I should say when I talk about a divine consciousness, I am talking about a consciousness that is unlimited and infinite in nature, in actuality, divine consciousness is able to create anything and everything because it's not limited.

The following are my replies to other people on a forum, life can be limiting or limitless, this is our choice.

____________________________

I don't faze you do I I Spirit 3, I respect this; you simply just go with the flow within the present, in my mind quite commendable.

Yes, I suppose so, is love and light a creation from it's opposite making the opposite just as worthy as love and light or visa-versa.  I suppose motion works like this, action reaction, push and pull, cause and effect. I was speaking with a Malaysian bloke for some time on and off, he often mentioned the natural flow of the  push and pull effect of motion, my western mind had a hard time comprehending where he was coming from at times but in all it made sense to me.  He basically said all we need to do is get off the treadmill for all motion creates delusions to one extent or another. 

I simply concur, everything is of and comes from spirit/consciousness.

You know how I bag/acknowledge the ways of a black and white mentality, I too express this because how is the ego suppose to become aware if it's not put in a way that the ego can comprehend and understand?  Motion is often of black and white for instance, light and dark dominating each other, however, to get off the treadmill one has to learn the ways of the black and white mentality of the ego, the paradox is, the ego needs a black and white comprehension to do this, to start with, but know when to let go of this black and white mentality as well.

It's indeed all natural but I can see that it might not seem that way as well.

____________________________

Do we need to plan therefore control?  I think the ego needs to plan where our divine self doesn't, what is there to plan when you are everything and are aware of everything?

In my mind, we need to be caring thoughtful of the ego without being controlling, I often think of the ego as my child that needs my loving attention to become aware and adult in it's motions, otherwise it's going to be and act in a self-cantered way like a spoilt brat. I think our present reality shows this.

You don't have to be controlling towards your child, just simply guiding the child through simple awareness. Guiding isn't controlling, it's leading by example, going with the flow of awareness rather than going against the flow of awareness. Control is set to certain specifics of awareness, it's only of the awareness of what can be controlled by the ego, all else is usually discarded or ignored.

The thing with love and light is it's apart of the process that was created by the process itself, the process of the ego being in control. Think of it as a treadmill, the control of the treadmill keeps us in motion but when we get off the treadmill; are we still controlled by the treadmill? We simply got off the process of control. Getting off from one life process creating another life process is the same as getting off from the control of the treadmill; we simply stopped the ego controlling us thus creating yet another process and on it goes.

I think treating the process of love and light as a be and end all is a huge mistake as it's still apart of the process of control. I have spoken to a number of Eastern minded people on this, they all say all we need to do is release ourselves from this control, from this process, to be our whole self. Let's be honest, love and light is still about taking control rather than releasing it. I think the Western mind has a huge problem in comprehending this; it's probably why so many Western minded people are upset with me in what I write, I'm simply seen as a threat to the process of control. 

My stepdaughter Karla has won three world titles in a row now; it's a world record in women's IPSC shooting. We guided Karla rather than controlled Karla.