Defining Unconditional Love

Written by Mathew Naismith

In truth, are we becoming more unconditionally loving or less? To answer this we must first define what unconditional love is, I hope the following does just this. I recently found the following in my research on this topic.

_______________________________

http://www.thepowerofoneness.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-conditional-love-and-unconditional-love/

Extract: "Conditional love is a polarised emotion, meaning that it has an opposite emotion. The opposite extreme of love is hatred. Conditional love comes from ego and generally focuses on someone (like romantic partner, child, parent, friend) or something (like a house, a car or a job). When we love someone conditionally, we tend to want them to look, act and think in ways that fit our own paradigms and expectations.

Unconditional love is a neutral and has no opposite. The source of unconditional love is Spirit; therefore it is available to everyone without discernment, and there is absolutely nothing we need to do to qualify for it.

_______________________________

Indeed, conditional love has everything to do with fulfilling our desires to feel good or feel better and better, there seems to be no end to fulfilling our ego desires. Are multinationals happy with owning millions of dollars worth of assets? No, it has to be billions and even trillions. Do we not also use spirituality to feel good or better and better? Lets be honest, the feel good industry that serves our desires is growing at an alarming rate. If it doesn't make us feel good, it's a negative, I am flabbergasted (astonished)!!

I am flabbergasted because I can't see how we have evolved any further in consciousness from thousands of years ago. Is trying to escape and/or showing an obvious disdain for humanity a show of unconditional love? If you can face the so-called negatives face on as you do the positives, this is a sign of being unconditional within your consciousness. Unconditional love is a consciousness of the absence of conditions period, how many of us separate what makes us feel good to what doesn't make us feel good? We often do this by judging what is and isn't negative and positive to start with. A separation of consciousness by the ego to fulfilled its desires!! A consciousness of unconditional love has nothing to fulfill, there are no desires therefore nothing to fulfill.  

If people like me were all about feeling good and fulfilling our desires, we wouldn't be telling the truths in the way it actually is, we would instead tell the truth in accordance with ours and other people's desires. I certainly don't desire to tell the truth in the way it is as it doesn't make me feel good or bad and this is where the neutral comes into it. It's a con by the ego, way do we have to feel good or bad, negative or positive? The strange thing with not always trying to feel good by separating consciousness into negatives and positive, bad and good, it does make me feel good by simply being neutral. Being neutral isn't a fulfillment of a desire; it's simply being of a neutral consciousness between what's desired and undesired. Being of a neutral consciousness, a consciousness of the absence of conditions depicts a consciousness of fewer motions. It's understandable that the fewer motions we express, the more truly unconditionally loving our consciousness will be. So many spiritual practices depict just this but are we truly listening?

In a time of insurmountable deception, chaos, mayhem and destruction, it is understandable and natural for the ego to desire to escape from this by any means. Be careful though, is deceiving yourself to an existence of unconditional love, when this existence has insurmountable conditions, not of the deception therefore a creation of this ego controlled existence? It is advisable to never create another existence from the same energy that created the previous existence; this kind of consciousness will never truly evolve in this manner. Any separation of consciousness naturally creates an existence based on deception and self-deception. Separating consciousness by any means will only lead to deception and lies or half truths!!

My advice to any spiritually aware person is to desist in any program, (ideology or ism), which leads to the separation of consciousness into negatives and positives, bad and good, black and white. Try to become more neutral and the more neutral you become, the more unconditionally loving you will become without effort. Are people like me truly unconditionally loving? No, we are of no conditions, this simply means to become unconditionally loving hasn't the conditions of not being of desires as well, just being simply aware is all that is needed, aware of our neutral being/existence. Remember, to try to be the opposite of desire is still of a desire, simply be as neutral as you can be without desiring this state too much. Go with the flow, not against it.......                             

Living Consciousness

Written by Mathew Naismith

There are a number of different sources of information in relation to living consciousness, each has their own views on living consciousness but what is living consciousness? I have included two sources in relation to this topic further on in my post.

Living consciousness is basically perceived as representing an energy source in motion while in participation; this is instead of a consciousness not in motion. To get an idea what represents a consciousness in motion and not in motion, imagine being an observer to participation. Being a participator is obviously of motion, however, being an observer judging or perceiving, for example, a negative or positive, is also of participation. Full on observation is observing participation void of any motion (participation) what so ever. Participation refers directly to motion therefore a living consciousness, however, as I will explain further on in this post, this only represents a consciousness that is half alive, half aware.

So does this mean a consciousness not of motion is dead as opposed to living?

In true state of observation therefore motionlessness/timelessness, nothing is in opposition as there are no perceptions of opposites. In this state everything is as one, for only in time is there starting and ending points therefore opposing forces like birth and death, light and dark, high and low, etc. Does consciousness actually go into a state of death from a state of life after our demise? Time, therefore motion and participation, tells us it does but timelessness, therefore motionlessness and observation, tells us something quite different. If you perceive that a major shift in energy flows from one state to another, like from birth to death, is a state where consciousness dies, a complete state of death is perceived. However, when we truly observe without participation, no true form of separation of one state to another has occurred. In a state of observation there are no perceptions, there is only awareness void of any separation therefore motion what so ever.

Perceived living consciousness = motion + participation + time + perceptions + separation

Non-living consciousness = motionlessness + observation + timelessness + awareness + oneness

It's really advisable not to perceive that a non-living consciousness is dead or represents the death of a consciousness. Within this state you actually become more alive as you become more aware. Yes, there is a connection with being aware and life. How aware is an insect to life, to its own existence, than man? Man is more aware of life than an insect, however, how many people are aware of an existence of consciousness after death? It's as though we are only half alive when not of the awareness of consciousness's existence after our so-called death. We are basically living in participation wile excluding observation, a separation of participation and observation. What occurs when we become more observant? We become more aware even in our present state!!

Living consciousness actually refers to both motions and motionlessness, time and timelessness, participation and observation, etc, void of separation of one to the other. 

A good way to practice in observation is to go on an internet forum and simply observe without judgment. It's a lot better if you observe what you perceive to be negative in some way; this can include anything that questions your own personal and professional beliefs/concepts to anyone's actions that disgusts you. Condition your consciousness to wholly observe at first and when you feel comfortable in observation, interact/participate with other people. Note, when in participation, avoid any participation with anyone who is obvious within their aggression towards you at first. You will soon be able to participate with people who are obvious within their aggression latter on. It's actually advisable to do this, only when comfortable to do so, as this will condition you to then observe your own participation under duress or strain. Yes, you will have to still block some people. I don't ignore people while in participation; I see this as being rude and disrespectful so I block certain people instead but only after a certain amount of interaction.                                

http://www.sunypress.edu/p-5291-living-consciousness.aspx

Extract: Throughout the work, Barnard offers “ruminations” or neo-Bergsonian responses to a series of vitally important questions such as: What does it mean to live consciously, authentically, and attuned to our inner depths? Is there a philosophically sophisticated way to claim that the survival of consciousness after physical death is not only possible but likely?

https://zenhabits.net/wake-up-a-guide-to-living-your-life-consciously/

Extract: Living consciously is about taking control of your life, about thinking about your decisions rather than making them without thought, about having a life that we want rather than settling for the one that befalls us.

_______________________________

I don't actually conform to taking control of our life. For me, it's more about letting go of control of motions; this gives us more free will to choose how we want to live our lives while living a life in motion. You really don't have to be in control therefore controlled by motion to be of a living consciousness.......        

Quelling Our Reactions, Our Motions.

Written by Mathew Naismith

Where most spiritual teachings, especially Eastern teachings, teach and guide us to express less motions through practices and awareness like meditation and oneness, we are expressing more motions and not just in the West.

I was thinking of winding back my interactions, my own motions, for a while, thinking that my readers and I need time out, my dreams stated otherwise last night. One dream seemed quite long on the subject of our excessive/extreme reactions. It is psychologically understandable that a consciousness that judges parts of humanity as negative and even toxic or demonic, will desire to feel better by any means. This includes means that express excessive/extreme motions in reaction.

Let's be honest, love and light and positive thinking is in counteraction, a reaction to what we perceive to be negative, toxic, demonic, etc. What would our reactions be if we didn't judge certain parts of humanity as being all these things? The odds are that we wouldn't be as expressive of excessiveness/extremes as we are now. What occurs when a white man judges a black man being negative in any sense to the white man? This kind of action usually creates a reaction of excessiveness/extremes. In all honesty, are not a lot of us doing the same by expressing a simular mentality towards a judged negative? This is exactly why I often state about staying away from the perceptions of negatives and positives as much as possible.

In truth, people like me compare the suns violence and destructiveness to man, we observe humanity comes nowhere near to the motions expressed by the sun. So if the sun isn't judged as being negative, toxic and demonic, etc, why are parts of humanity so critically judged in this way? In truth, our reactions wouldn't be as excessive/extreme as they are today, within this, we wouldn't judge humanity so critically. Humanity is what it is, neither perfect nor totally imperfect, just simply lost within its own creation in certain areas and circumstances. Yes, some of our programs, our isms and ideologies, are infected with the virus excessiveness/extremism as explained in my previous posts, however, we can rectify this.

The following interaction between Carolyn and me is on the topic materialism, how materialism is all about the feel good industry at the cost of humanity as a whole. I should state that when we become more aware, feeling good within ourselves and the feel of love and light comes naturally. Instead of materially/physically primarily focusing on love and light and positive thinking in excess and reaction, we spiritually focus on awareness and wisdom that naturally creates love and light and a positive/constructive reality. Imagine creating a more constructive reality that isn't based on excessive/extreme reactions, in other words on far less motions!! Let's be honest, the more motion we create, the more destructive we become, it's the natural law of motion/inertia.

http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law1.html                   

Carolyn's Reply

Very interesting Mathew - as always. I wonder if a possible root of materialism is anything to do with Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest'. Could this subconsciously have been internalised and down the generations emerges in the form of acquiring as much as possible?

Reply

Good question Carolyn. Is it of natural law that the fittest will prevail over all else within a material world? I would have to say yes, I would be lying to myself if I said otherwise.

Is the natural law of spirituality also not of the survival of the fittest? In this case the survival of the most aware within a materialistic reality. In saying this, will the people solely of materialism prevail in the end?

Materialism seems to totally rely on how good we feel; of course how good we feel has become our primary objective, leaving awareness and wisdom way behind in being our primary objective. Awareness tells us to chastise (guide) our children for their own benefit in the long run. Feeling good tells us to not chastise our children for the sake of us feeling good within the present. Chastising children for their own good is also a negative it would seem these days!! 

Indeed Carolyn, in a material/physical world, the laws of the survival of the fittest are absolute, however, what is truly defined as being the fittest? I don't think materialistic feel good isms and ideologies (programs) define the fittest in my mind. Yes, within the present but the energy they use is soon used up as awareness is virtually non-existent. We need awareness to wisely know how to use energy within a physical material existence, this is clearly not occurring.   

As I have said in a previous post, we are a consciousness lost within its own creation, a creation based primarily on feeling good!!

I often find your queries quite compelling Carolyn, a sign of conscious maturity (awareness) in my mind. I often relate conscious maturity to conscious awareness; it's pleasant to see this within you.

Carolyn's Reply

Thank you Mathew! You are always inspiring!

Yes I agree in the survival of the most aware - perhaps the riches we seek are inner ones.
It is interesting what you say about children, as a primary school teacher I see more and more parents unwilling to guide their children, even young ones - it is as if nothing much matters - I notice the 'it doesn't matter' mentality all around these days.

Maybe if we could all sit with our own feelings in moments of stillness we could get to know ourselves better and begin to form healthy relationships with the environment and each other, and ourselves? Just mulling! :)

Reply

A very good example why I saver our friendship. Good one Carolyn, well explained as always.   

Materialistic Extremism Unveiled

Written by Mathew Naismith

 Note: This is quite a long post, sorry for this. 

Is materialism of lies and deceit and spirituality of truth and honesty? The more expressive of materialism we become, the more of lies and deceit we become!!

Materialism is based on how we feel. Spirituality is based on how we are. Unlike materialism, spirituality is not based on bad or good, wrong and right, negative or positive, spirituality is actually based on fewer motions, not more motions.

What is desire? A desire to feel good all the time materialistically; the more we desire to feel good, the more motion we are expressive of. Does it always feel good to guide the child you adore through chastising them? Spirituality is not about how good we feel but about what we constructively do. This is probably why a lot of children are not chastised, guided, these days, we have become far too materialistic.

This was in reply to, "Spiritual vision is given to those who live in truth", by Phil Good.

Imagine a reality void of materialistic desires, what then would determine what is and isn't negative or positive? The more motion we express, the more separation we will experience and the more we focus on feeling good. Seen as spirituality, especially Eastern spirituality, is about expressing less motions through practices like meditation and the realisation of oneness, expressing any kind of extreme motion, especially to feel good, isn't of spirituality, it's materialism.  

Don't be tricked by materialistic desires, materialistic desires often deceive us in thinking they are one thing when they are another. Of course if it feels good, it must be good, this could not be further from the truth.

I also love interacting with people who have experienced actual life experiences instead of simply expressing plagiarised life experiences. A life experience copied from books, studies and workshops and recited as a life experience experienced by the presenter. My interaction with Heather, who is a police officer, is always a pleasurable experience for me. So much comes from me with this kind of interaction.

Heather's Reply

Yes, being a Police Officer, I have to support all information with evidence. This has become standard for me and it is interesting to observe how it is not standard for others.

I have been caught out twice recently for posting information on FB that does not have supporting evidence, lazy on my side and poor reporting on the others.            

My Reply

Most often it's the atheists that don't give supporting evidence to their claims, this may seem strange but it's not.

I was once an atheist myself, this was until the rest of my family and I experienced ghostly occurrences on numerous occasions. Everyone, bar my dad, accepted what the experiences were in relation to. My dad to this day is still in total denial of these occurrences. Hard line atheists, as my dad, will never accept the obvious no matter what evidence was forthcoming. 

Giving evidence to their own claims is like accepting the obvious they want to ignore at all cost. Anyone presenting anything that they want to ignore as being factual in any sense, is usually defamed in some way, within this, they are able to continue to ignore what they detest the most, most often the obvious, the truth.

Giving evidence to claims to these people is like accepting someone as an equal. As I have found out myself through various interactions, the last thing these people want to do is look at you in respect and as an equal. Psychologically, most often these people have no idea what they are doing; they are oblivious to their own actions. Having worked in the welfare arena twice over in my life, these kinds of behavioural patterns are way too obvious.

Heather's Reply

Very interesting observations. I guess you could say that by avoiding fact so that one does not have to admit the truth, is really about fear.

We know that every 'reality' and emotion we experience is created from within by ourselves, so being intentionally blinkered to what is fact, is all about how you feel about yourself

My Reply

Indeed Heather, fear. How many criminals work on the emotion fear, they often use this emotion against people for some kind of gain on purpose. Are atheists in fear of being wrong and living the fantasy? They often rebuke, in any way they can, any science or other evidence that slightly hints at this, I have witnessed this numerous times in my interactions with hard core atheists.

Do excessively positive thinking people fear being negative? Considering a true positive person sees very little negative in anything, what they call true positive thinking today isn't true. Anything expressed in excess or in an extreme way is not true to the program, it's a virus. Could you imagine the existence of computer viruses without the existence of viruses with our own programs within our minds? Computer viruses would not exist in our computer systems unless they firstly existed in our minds, within our own minds programs and programming.

There is nothing wrong with anything from atheism to religion, science to spirituality, black to white, dark to light, love to hate, etc. Only when viruses are present within these programs do programs become corrupt and destructive. How many people fear the emotion hate? It's all based on fear and what is fear based on? Attachments and the inability to let go of these conditions of attachments. To many people, the condition of love is not to hate in a huge way!!

Do I hate, especially the people in my life who have abused me physically and mentally? What would have occurred if a lot of people loved Nazism or didn't hate Nazism? The thought isn't very constructive. Hate has to be a part of our program in our present situation. Of course we have created this reality that we need to hate at times even though hate is more of a bug than a virus. Hate being a glitch in the system program rather than a virus. Hate within itself is not destructive; it's the program that hate is bugged with that is. All excessive motions indicate a virus, for example, religious fanaticism/extremism is a prime example of a virus to the program of religion. 

I don't express hate within my own program but I am aware. I am simply aware avoid of as many labels as I can be. Mentioning viruses and bugs by the way are not labels, they are simply an awareness of a difference between having conditions and not having conditions. Is the condition of being aware not experiencing and expressing viruses? No, as being truly aware takes one to be expressive of fewer conditions, not expressive or more conditions.  A pure state of awareness simply has no conditions, the more conditions our programs are expressive of, the less aware we become.

Sorry for this Heather, I love expressing myself to people who have had actual life experiences. Too often do I come across people who plagiarise their experiences. Study and read from literature and then express this as a life experience. Actually, I might write up our interaction here in a post on my blog if that is alright with you.

Heather's Reply

Matthew, really interesting words that I am getting my head around. 

I understand totally when you say that the more conditioned we are, the less aware we are. Fear undoubtedly sits at the root of conditioning, whether it is new or generational. Perhaps an Atheist feels uncomfortable at the thought of bearing the consequence of their actions over a lifetime. 

I see your analogy of viruses and bugs as that, a tool for illustrating your view, not conditioning. Ultimately we both express the same point, that the good and bad that occur in life are a reflection of our state of awareness.

Of course you can use this interaction, always a pleasure Matthew 

Extrication from Programs

Written by Mathew Naismith 

To start with, what is a program?

As of a computer system, the human mind is only as aware as the program programmed in the human mind, of course as of any program, programs can be bugged and/or influenced by viruses as well. Programs are anything from atheism to theism, science to spirituality, capitalism to communism, black to white, negative to positive, dark to light, love to hate, etc. In truth, these are all programs we limit human conscious to and a lot more.

It's important to realise that not all programs limit human consciousness, especially to the point of hindering human conscious evolving further. For example, there is a very good reason why people like me no longer follow the program of atheism any more, we find this way too limiting of a program, limiting consciousness to certain specifics only, like 3 dimensional aspects.  

We might think that Westernised materialist atheism, as opposed to Eastern spiritual atheism, is more of free thinking therefore less of a program than most. The amount of atheist who want to force their program of atheism onto other people is insurmountable. Atheism is only of free thinking as long as you are programmed to the program of atheism; all other programs are wrong and faulty to this program. This is not free thinking. Human programs, such as atheism and religion, are programmed to their own way of thinking, of course all else is going to be faulty and wrong.

What is free thinking?

To not limit your consciousness to certain specifics only is of freer thinking, to truly be of free thinking is for the mind to be free of human programs, in actuality, programs related to the universe itself as a whole. Yes, to people like me, we see the universe as being a program, in actuality, quite a simple program unlike the programs human consciousness programs the human mind to. Why are the wise wise? They simply don't limit their consciousness to certain specific programs; the less consciously limiting we are to certain specific programs, the wiser we become. Is wisdom prominent today? In truth, it's quite obvious it's not only because of the insurmountable programs human consciousness has become fixated to.

Try to remember, there are programs that actually program the human mind to become less of these programs and more of a true form of free thinking, of course viruses and bugs within a program will state otherwise as always. Also, if you are aware of any program and exist within a program, you are of the program. Basically, you are on an operating system that programs runs off of just be simply being human. What program you program your own mind to will make a huge difference to the reality the human mind creates.                  

Unconditional Love Unveiled

Written by Mathew Naismith

Is unconditional love of a mother towards her child or a faithful pet is towards their owner?

In truth, no on both accounts even though a form of unconditional love is being expressed. As soon as unconditional love is expressed, love is no longer unconditional. The conditions are, the child has to be of the mother and the pet has to be owned by their owner. Does a mother love a stranger unconditionally as they do their child? It's simply a form of unconditional love, not a true sense of unconditional love. So what is unconditional love unveiled, shown for what it actually is?

Can we express unconditional love towards flees, ants, lice and weevils, etc? The conditions to be able to express unconditional love in relation to these creatures are what? Even what we perceive to be unconditional love has conditions, at times insurmountable conditions only because all expressions are not of a true form of unconditional love. 

How often do we show a form of unconditional love towards another human, but not what humans rely on for their existence? We could not have created the reality of today without the existence of rock and wood, how many of us even show an ounce of appreciation for rock and wood? How many of us have shown a kind of unconditional love towards rock and wood? There are insurmountable conditions to our expressed love.

Everything that exists within a reality of motion is a form of an expression of one kind or another, expressing a truer form of unconditional love within this kind of existence is futile. However, even while experiencing an existence in motion, one can be of unconditional love as opposed to expressive of unconditional love.

First of all, try to imagine unconditional love not being of motion but motionless, a state often known as zero point, nothingness, pure awareness, emptiness, etc. Believe it or not, these states refer to the same state however, for example, how can nothingness also be of pure awareness?

From a consciousness primarily conditioned to motion, any state of motionlessness is going to be perceived as being of nothingness, totally empty, this would also have to mean empty of awareness. Imagine the wind not blowing. Just because the wind is not blowing, doesn't mean the wind doesn't exist or isn't present, it simply means the wind is virtually motionless. For many of us, if the wind isn't blowing means the wind doesn't exist. As of anything within a reality of motion, there is movement no matter how subtle it might be.

Now, imagine how a consciousness, conditioned to motion, would perceive a state of motionlessness. It would be perceived to be completely void of anything and understandably so.

Imagine being in a state where there are no conditions. Yes, certain humans have reached this state by simply being of unconditional love instead of trying to be expressive of unconditional love. There are simply no conditions to what your love is of, as soon as we try to express this love, we then define what this love is going to be expressed to. Certainly not to rocks and trees or the entire universe we rely on for our very own existence. Within this motion we have created huge amounts of conditions. Within all motions there are conditions, this is why unconditional love is of motionlessness, states of perceived nothingness/emptiness.

States of motion = conditions + love + expressions + separation

States of motionlessness = no conditions + unconditional love + non-expressions + union  

When you come across someone who is like being of unconditional love, are they expressive of unconditional love or simply naturally without effort exude unconditional love, there is a difference? Imagine having as much love for rocks and wood or Earth period as you do your child. Don't get me wrong here, not everyone who is perceived to be unconditionally loving towards Earth/nature is expressing unconditional love. Often these people will show less love towards humans for there actions towards Mother Nature as a whole.

This motionlessness state seems to be the ultimate state. Not at all. All of what is, is the ultimate state without separation of states of motion and motionlessness. Of course, only in states of motion can separation occur, especially the separation from a state of pure awareness to states of unawareness. I find this interesting, the further we become unaware in this separation, the more expressive of hate and of unacceptance we become. It is then quite understandable that less motion we express, the more unconditionally loving we become. Really, another expression for a state of unconditional love is a state of pure awareness or oneness; of course to become purely aware or of oneness takes one to free oneself completely of conditions.

I think to truly comprehend and understand what I am saying here, takes one to have experienced certain states of awareness as opposed to unawareness. There are as many experiences that can be experienced that will make us less aware, than there are experiences that will make us more aware. This is where wisdom comes into it; no experience can make you less aware within a state of wisdom.

By not separating states of motionlessness from motion is more of a Hindu/Taoist concept than a Buddhist concept, all is worthy and a natural part of existence as a whole. Yes, the ultimate state to human consciousness is going to be a state of oneness/pure awareness, however, once in this state, all of existence is realised to be worthy and of the ultimate state void of separation. This is unconditional love unveiled.