Looking Beyond

Written by Mathew Naismith

I do receive some interesting queries and replies at times that send me off writing again, it's as though some people are able to incite the inner most awareness from other people without much effort.

Sorry for this Mike, you started me off again which isn't unusual for you; you seem to have a knack, an ability for it.  

Enlightenment: Education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge.

(Hinduism and Buddhism) the beatitude that transcends the cycle of reincarnation; characterized by the extinction of desire and suffering and individual consciousness.

Enlightenment to me is of a state of the extinction of desire and suffering and individual consciousness that is reached through awareness. Could a collective consciousness, as opposed to an individual consciousness, become this aware? Looking from a human perspective, I would say no. Looking from a more open and aware consciousness, most probably and likely.

Indeed Mike, 3 dimensional realities consist of both polarities, after all it's these polarities, and at times opposing polarities, that create 3 dimensional realities like this. We do have a choice to be either expressive of opposing or unifying polarities or both. Our present human reality is imbalanced because there are few unifying expressive polarities being expressed; it's either one or the other in opposition to the other to an extreme.

If I was to counteract the negative opposing polarities, people and their expression, with extreme positivity, does this give balance to a reality? There is no balance to be had in separation, only further imbalance; it's basically what a lot of new age spiritually aware people are doing.

Imagine an old fashion scale; one side represents positive and the other negative. Now imagine the positive being further extended on the arm than the negative, how is this balance? It's the same if both polities of a scale were excessively extended, the further away both polarities are away from each other, the harder it is to obtain balance. The last thing we should be doing is distancing (separating) ourselves from the whole, from the pole that holds the arm of the scale. The closer we are to the pole, the easier it is to obtain balance.

You could look at the pole and the base of the scale representing the source of creation (God), the closer we become to this pole (the creative source), the easier it is to obtain balance in any dimension. You can't ascend into another so-called higher dimension without first being accepting, especially if the dimension is of unconditional love. How can you become unconditionally loving without first being unconditionally accepting? This is exactly what a lot of people are trying to do, become unconditionally loving void of being unconditionally accepting period. In actuality, people who are supposed to be more unconditionally loving, void of being unconditionally accepting, have less and less acceptance, not more acceptance.

It would seem on their part we are simply against these people and their ideologies, this couldn't be further from the truth, it is the way they think sadly enough. We are simply trying to help them to become aware that you can't be unconditionally loving without first becoming unconditionally accepting, even and especially while in a 3rd dimensional reality.

Acceptance doesn't mean we have to become what you accept, it simply means accepting what is for what it is. We know not what we do, if we did, we simply couldn't and wouldn't do it; this is the way it is.

Can we ascend (evolve) to a more aware consciousness in turn giving us piece on Earth?  If our consciousness is going to stay 3 dimensional, I would say not. We must evolve on from being of human consciousness, what a lot of people call ascend, to obtain this on a collective scale, a huge ask. It would have to take a huge shift in consciousness, a shift away from being non-unconditionally accepting to start with. As we personally know ourselves Mike, this is not easy under the present circumstances.

Kim Passie also brought foreword some interesting queries within his remarks.   

My Reply

Human perception is that neutrality is between negative and positive, it's the balancing force between negative and positive like old fashion scales. This is true in a sense.

However, neutrality is an entity all of its own, it's not really a part of negative and positive but it can balance out negatives and positives. Negative and positive acting/being as one is simply neutrality, it basically neutralises negatives and positives in a state they are no longer needed in.

Indeed Kim, just because neutrality can exist between positive and negative, doesn't make it of positive and negative, it's a completely different entity. It's like a triangle; neutrality is the pinnacle of the triangle so neutrality is indeed above positive and negative. Neutrality is between negative and positive but more importantly above more than between.

If neutrality was on the same line or level as positive and negative, you could clearly say neutrality is between positive and negative but as you say it's not, not really.

Reply

Wow Mathew <3 This is Onderfully put.... I actually felt this, this morning <3 I realized that neutrality can be seen as the space in which positive and negative happen...

My Reply

Well stated Kim, you seem to have grasped wisdom very well. To comprehend wisdom is one thing, to understand wisdom is another. You can tell who is really aware and who isn't in the queries and remarks they express. The people who have wisely learnt from their environment instead of suffered from their environment. You seem to have stopped suffering from your environment, you have basically neutralised the environment around you it would seem. 

A good example of suffering is excessive positivity in counteraction to suffering. Suffering has created a reaction of excess positivity, in actuality the positivity in this case is primarily based on negative suffering. There is a difference between negative and positive suffering. What is neutrality based on? Neither or both in neutrality to each other, this is why this state is so aware; there are no biases to start with.

Today's westernised spirituality is all about feeling good, usually in counteraction to the suffering, insurmountable biases. How do caring loving parents treat their children? They will suffer for their children so their children may not suffer, they will often give while going without themselves, is this negative? 

Spirituality, wisdom and awareness isn't all about us feeling good, it's about finding a balance in life while suffering yourself to save others from suffering at times, like caring loving parents. Is suffering negative when we learn from it and give so much? Feeling good quite naturally occurs when we become aware of this neutral state; this is without feeling good on the back of suffering. This feel good isn't based on suffering but a state of neutrality as neutrality isn't in counteraction to anything.

Good to hear that you don't just comprehend neutrality but understand it too.