Saturday, 15 June 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
Going with the natural flow of life, the natural flow of water, in the absence of control of life, of the water, that we are all presently experiencing and a part of, no matter how much we desire to separate ourselves from this natural flow.
The natural flows actually refers to all motion, the ego, in the absence of a controlling ego. Of course the ego in control often desires to be separate itself from natural flow, to an ego not having the desire of desiring to control the flow of life/water.
There are people, like my wife and I, who simply go with the flow within the present, whatever that flow may be in the absence of a controlling ego. The ego in control doesn't gently flow, it often turns the water, life, into a torrent, recreating a desired flow often in opposition to the natural flow. As of torrents, often a different direction is enforced by the force emitted by desires, desires to enforce a different direction of flow of life/water. This is instead of calming the present waters of life that are often deemed negative, most likely because they don't fulfil our desires or what we demand life to be.
The natural flow of life, the ego, isn't there for our pleasures, it is simply there to experience. Yes, within this natural flow, life won't always be rosy (positive), but the ego in control demands that life must serve it's desires, which means that life has to be always pleasurable to the ego.
People like me simply don't expect or demand of life, of the present flow of water, that we must feel pleasurable all the time. We certainly don't try to separate one part of consciousness from the rest of consciousness so we can fulfil the controlling egos desires.
As of life, human consciousness, presently controlled by the ego in control, we must also go with this flow, while not becoming of what this flow represents, the desire to fulfil our desires at any cost. Would a responsible parent allow their badly behaved child go on being badly behaved to fulfil one's own pleasures? So why ignore the negatives in the present flow of water to fulfil our own desires of demanding to feel good all the time? As the badly behaved child will only become worse in their behaviour when their behaviour is ignored, so will the collective consciousness.
Yes, the natural flow of water isn't always a comfortable temperature, but we really shouldn't demand more of life than what is to fulfil what our ego in control desires. Anything beyond of what the natural flow of what is, is something else than natural.....
Wednesday, 12 June 2019
Written by Mathew
Something different, in a different approach:
Imagine the brain being wired with electrical wires of all sorts of gauges instead of neurons. No brain's wiring is the same as no person is the same; each brain has its own gauge wiring therefore reacts differently to simular circumstances in accordance with the conditioning of the consciousness. Is an enlightened person's brain wiring of the same gauge than that of an average person's brain wiring? This is why an enlightened person can handle any kind of electrical influx or current, be it negative or positive. In all honestly, because the wiring is replaced with a bigger gauge wiring through certain spiritual practices, what was once perceived through the ego to be negative and positive, is no longer negative and positive.
When people tell me or other people how negative and toxic they are, I know from that point what kind of gauge wiring their own brain is wired with.
A person who has suffered any kind of trauma will either end up with a thicker/bigger gauge wiring in the brain, or, the wiring in the brain will become faulty. Once the wiring becomes faulty, any kind of electrical influx beyond of what the wiring can handle will end up failing or become faultier. In the process, the messages sent to the brain via faulty wiring will of course end up faulty or misleading/deceptive. Is not the wiring of the collective consciousness faulty, seen as we are still suffering from our suffering, instead of learning from our suffering?
To suffer from our suffering is to simply judge this suffering negative or toxic, in the process to be avoided because our own wiring in our brain is unable to handle the electrical influx. In all honesty, if the brain is not wired with bigger gauge wiring to cope with the influx being present at the present, I think it's wise to avoid such influxes. However, I think it far wiser replacing our obvious too small of gauge wiring with a bigger gauge wiring. How we rewire our brains neurons makes all the difference. Could a multinational psychologically cope with being poor, with no hope of being anything else? Now, could an enlightened person cope with the same environment or even cope not being enlightened?
So why can an enlightened person cope with any kind of electrical influx in comparison to a multinational or the average person? It is all to do with the way the brain is being reconditioned, which includes rewiring the brain with a bigger gauge wire to handle any circumstance. How many spiritually aware people can handle any kind of circumstance, any kind of electrical influx? The small gauge wiring is simply unable to cope with the present influx, thus the wiring becomes faultier.
Our wiring is faulty from the time we are born, because the collective conscious environment we are born in is wired with inadequate gauge wiring, or, the wiring is faulty through not learning from our suffering. We are naturally born with small gauge wiring. As we evolve or grow up, the process we go through either strengthens our wiring or our wiring isn't replaced with bigger gauge wiring as we evolve personally. Has the collective human conscious wiring evolved at the same rate as our advancing technology? It is as if one part of the collective human conscious brain is rewired with bigger gauge wiring, while the other parts of the brain's wiring is forgotten or simply rejected as not existing.
To a person who's positive is based on rejecting the negatives, in other words egoistically separating one part of the whole consciousness from another for a desired outcome, is of course inline with the collective human consciousness rejecting the part of the brain it desires to not be a part of. How many materialists and/or atheists reject that a consciousness can exist outside of the physical brain? In all honesty, it is the same thing with a lot of spiritually aware people today. See how the collective human consciousness wiring is inadequate of faulty, were a consciousness has not holistically evolved.
An enlightened one's wiring is different, because it's holistically evolved, not in accordance to the ego's desires, but in accordance in the absence of a controlling ego. An enlightened one doesn't take control of a consciousness; it simply is in the absence of the controlling ego. The ego is still present but it no longer has control, in that a desired outcome is always sought, an outcome that usually tantalises the ego and feeds the ego's desires.
Why was I so good at my job working with all kinds of disabilities, even in the absence of professional education in line with my work? My wiring was simply of a bigger gauge wiring as I learnt from my own and other people's suffering. I certainly didn't simply judge anyone's wiring that was faulty as being negative or toxic, therefore ignore the negatives to serve my ego's desired outcome. If you are picking up on negative toxic vibrations, it is wise to first look at your own wiring.
Could I be openly honest with the disabled people I worked with? No, as I knew that their own brains wiring/neurons wouldn't cope with this. Then why am I openly honest on the internet, knowing that many people's wiring will not cope with open minded honesty? My ego is not on the internet to be liked. My ego is on the internet to be expressive of open minded honesty, as this is one of the attributes or practices that can replace faulty inadequate wiring with bigger gauge wiring.
Note: None of the above was read or learnt from other human conscious sources, the above is only of my own thoughts, experiences and conjectures.
Sunday, 9 June 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
In a dream last night I was walking along in a pleasant environment, when a difference within this environment caught my eye upon a small hill.
Upon this hill was an environment likened to an environment of enlightenment, an environment that was tranquil and untainted by the ego in control. My ego of course saw this environment as being very beautiful.
As I approached this environment, a man within this environment put his hand up to stop me entering this environment. I immediately understood that this environment of enlightenment was not of my human journey at present. My ego, thankfully, gracefully accepted this and that was the end of the dream.
We might think that once we see an enlightened environment, this is what we are to become. Not everything you see and experience, you are supposed to become. We all exist within a dog eat dog reality, where if you allow other people to deter you from your desired goals, your desires won't be met. This is also called a crab mentality, where people walk over other people to acquire a desired outcome. Yes, a lot of people become this reality we exist in at present, but a lot of people don't. Just because we see and even experience an environment/reality, we don't necessarily have to become of that environment/reality.
Could you imagine being of a dog eat dog mentality or a crab mentality and experiencing an enlightened moment, even in a dream? I have simply not become of what the reality I am experiencing at present, as my ego was not disappointed at not being able to enter into an enlightened environment.
The ego often thinks that being enlightened is a better more positive option than being otherwise. Is it not said that all changes must come from within? So if I am no longer within a dog eat dog environment, that I specifically abstain from becoming, how am I to influence change upon such an environment when I am no longer of that environment? Individually, we know that all changes must come from within our own environment personally, so why do we do otherwise in relation to the collective environment?
Make no mistake, no matter what kind of environment you are within or experiencing, just being aware of an enlightened state is influential upon a collective consciousness without doing anything else. Of course being expressive of this state physically or through motion can be more influential but not necessarily. If the influence is based on a personal desired outcome, the outcome of the influence will not be in line with enlightenment, in all honesty, most likely quite the opposite.
Thursday, 6 June 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
In the midst of mayhem, demure and dauntless provocations, a wise and aware soul is able to make the most of the present; this is instead of trying the make the present something the ego simply desires. Of course what the ego desires often has nothing to do with the present. The ego in control will often separate itself from what it doesn't desire, thus only leaving what the ego in control desires, which is anything but of the present collective consciousness. Simply, an extraction of parts of the present desired consciousness from the undesired parts of a consciousness is implemented. To a lot of people, this extraction or division of a consciousness is living in the present, when in all honesty all this is, is living for the ego in control.
To a wise and aware soul, an enlightened consciousness, whatever the present is, is embraced no matter how of mayhem, demure and dauntless provocations it is. Think of the worst life experience a soul can experience. To an enlightened consciousness, this finite experience is nothing compared to the infinite, a state often referred to as God's consciousness or a state of pure awareness and motionless. Why do people react differently to the same trauma experienced? Often, a person who has gone through far worse trauma, will experience less trauma in the present than a person who has gone through very little trauma in comparison.
Too often people will think the present is of trauma, or of mayhem, demure and dauntless provocations collectively consciously. As an enlightened consciousness thinks no more of a life lived, no matter how good or bad it was, what occurs collectively over time in a finite reality, has no further bearing or relevance, for what a soul experiences is always of the finite. You don't actually experience the infinite like you do the finite, you simply are aware of what the finite represents. Only the ego in control makes any more of this, thus taking a consciousness back into a finite conscious state, in turn creating trauma, often through mayhem, demure and dauntless provocative experiences. As I have stated before, only the ego part of us can be in trauma or become hurt because the ego is only of the finite. The ego, either in control or not, cannot exist within an infinite reality or an infinite state of consciousness, for a consciousness to be aware of everything all at once, is in the absence of the ego in control. The infinite isn't of the absence of the ego, only the ego in control. Of course a consciousness of pure ego is only experienced in the absence of infinite wisdom and awareness.
To an enlightened consciousness, everything is of the present. Only the ego sees an extraction of the undesired for the desired as not being of their personal present, even though the collective present is often something quite different to what the ego in control desires.
So what do many of us do? Try to extract ourselves from the ego as much as possible, thus only being of the infinite. If in any sense you are trying to separate consciousness into parts to serve your ego's desires in this way, you are being more expressive of the finite, as the infinite is of the whole, not only parts of the whole a consciousness only desires to be of within the present. Only the ego in control desires or even needs to extricate itself from the ego. An enlightened consciousness simply desists in the extraction of consciousness, thus allowing one to simply become aware of everything in the absence of the ego's desires.
Try to remember this. If your ego takes control at times, only the ego in control will make a big deal of this. While experiencing the ego, just be aware, especially aware that the ego in control is not about awareness but ignorance.
Supplement: "Oh my God, my life has gone, it's all in the past to never be apart of me again!!"
This is of a finite consciousness, when in all honesty to an infinite consciousness, nothing is lost or gained, everything really does become of the present. Within this state, there are no perceptions of loss or gain, even while one is experiencing finite consciousness. Why do most people meet up with dead relatives after their own demise? Consciousness never dies or no longer exists. There is simply no sense of loss, or gain for that matter. To experience gain or loss is of finite consciousness, not of infinite consciousness. Not an easy view to condition an ego to, this is why certain people will always seem more enlightened than most other people.
Thursday, 30 May 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
Should we berate or hold our own selves to account, to the negatives, we have expressed in the past? This can be anything from saying the wrong thing that hurt other people, to not being loving enough and even showing disdain through judgement of other people. To be truly positive, or as I say constructive, the answer is too obvious, no, so why do so many people berate and even critically judge the present reality as being negative or even toxic?
To learn from our human ignorance, should we not learn from the past and present reality instead of continually suffer from it? To critically judge anything negative is to suffer from what we should instead be learning from. If I said the wrong thing at the wrong time to someone, is it constructive or positive to berate myself thus suffering from my own ignorance, this is instead of learning from my ignorance?
Once you start learning from ignorance/suffering, either that be indivisibly or collectively, it is impossible to judge this ignorance/suffering as being negative and especially toxic. So why are so many more people expressive of negatives and even toxic expressions in westernised spirituality today? Separation, a separation from what the individual or a group, as opposed to a collective, have deemed negative. As soon as someone expresses this that or the other is negative, especially toxic, I know within myself that they are still suffering from what they should in fact be learning from. In all honesty, anyone truly so-called positive/constructive person can be within any environment and still remain constructively expressional in the absence of any perceived negatives.
So what so many call positive and even spiritual today or of love and light, is of the ignorance of any judged negative or toxic environment, this is while being focused on separating ourselves from judged negatives and toxic environments!! In all honesty to oneself, we, ourselves, create what is negative and of a toxic environment when we persist in suffering from what we should in fact be learning from.
What is of the present is of the past, in that the past is still of the present. If we learnt from the past instead of suffering from the past, there is no way we could critically judged the past, which is of the present still, negative and especially of a toxic environment. The past is still of our present reality because we still haven't learnt to learn from our past, we still call the past that created the present reality negative and even toxic!! Is this in all honesty being constructive/positive? We even call being in the absence of negatives and toxic environments being spiritual, all else not spiritual!! A truly aware soul in the first place has nothing to be in the absence of to be constructive or spiritual to start with.
The question is now, should we stay within an environment that seemingly will always suffer from an environment instead of learning from an environment?
I have personally extracted myself from certain kinds of environments, to assist in environments that wants to learn instead of suffer from an environment. Also, once you have learnt from an environment, move on to another environment even if the environment seems negative to you. In all honesty, if it seems negative to you, you have something to learn from it.
A consciousness that doesn't learn from their environment isn't negative or toxic, just ignorant or unaware of how to learn from an environment, a consciousness simply lost within its own creation........
Sunday, 26 May 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
An enlightened one (person) is confronted with a positive loving person and a negative hateful person, according to the ego, within their own immediate environment. Neither person is treated any different to the other. So wouldn't the enlightened one feel negative vibrations from the person who is negative and hateful, and positive vibrations from the person who is positive and loving?
If you understand this kind of enlightened consciousness, you will be aware that this kind of consciousness is unable to feel negative or positive vibrations, for all separation of negatives and positives are determined and created by the ego. The only way that any consciousness can feel negative and positive vibrations, is to separate consciousness into parts. Of course the only part of us that does this is the ego. Make no mistake though, only the ego can determine if the ego is negative because of it's separation of consciousness. The main natural attribute of the ego is to separate thus create motion, therefore all that is motion is ego.
Take speeding along in a car, the ego has separated its immediate environment, the vehicle, from the rest of the environment. The perception of speed can only be determined through the separation of one environment from another.
We might then think to get from one point to another we need motion which relates to distance/space therefore time.
Motion is not time but can be determined or influenced by time, however, ego directly relates to motion but motion is not always related to time. Why? I remember hearing about a traveller who stopped in one town in outback
who saw the same exact aboriginal boy in one town than in another hundreds of
kilometres away in the same day. Consciousness, even being of time, isn't
always determined by the factors of distance therefore time, but motion is
always determined or created by the ego. The ego determined to be in one place
one minute and in another place in another minute. Australia
For the enlightened one, a consciousness that is not determined or influenced by time, motion or ego, therefore not of separation, will understandably treat each person as being simply expressive of motion therefore ego.
Is one vibration or motion more pleasant or unpleasant than another? To an enlightened one, all that one is aware of is that one existence is of the ego (motion), and the other of egoless (motionless), all else is simply a perception created by the ego. In saying this, there is still no separation of the ego or egoless consciousness.
How many people today think we all came from a starting point, being it love and light, a state absent of the ego or of some higher state of being? Considering this higher state not to be determined by time/motion, when did the starting point of a lower consciousness begin in a timeless motionless state? As of the egoless self, the ego self has always existed, it's just that the ego can seem more in motion within time. Make no mistake, the ego always desires to be of some kind of higher state of being, and to have only started off from this higher state.
In all honesty, the ego can just as much if not more so be expressional of motion in the absence of time. As what we call physical is not really all that physical compared to other existences, just denser within its motion, within its physicality. When a consciousness is determined by time, the consciousness in this kind of motion naturally becomes denser; giving the experiencer an incorrect perception of what represents a physical existence. All of what is physical within the universe is simply a reflection of what is truly physical, of the ego. Time doesn't determine what is more physical, but motion/ego does. Time simply makes a consciousness denser in motion, not more physical.
Think on this. A mathematician will often visualise a mathematical formula to then express this visualisation in a denser format which is then determined by time, space and distance. An architect or inventor will do the same, thus creating what seemed non-physical into something physical, something that takes up space therefore is determined to be more physical, not just simply denser!!
So why doesn't an enlightened one treat or see a difference in a negative hatful person compared to a positive loving person? As of myself, a very difficult conscious state to truly comprehend to any great extent, probably because of our conscious conditioning to motions determined by time.
Sunday, 19 May 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
What if I stated that if we were all enlightened beings, not one of us would think twice of experiencing this reality again no matter what our experiences were!! In all honesty, the ego in control would refute this to the bitter end, why? What doesn't serve the control the ego desires to obtain and retain over it's self and its environment, will be dismissed or deemed a negative one must stay away from to gain or retain control. Of course an ego that isn't about obtaining and retaining control is a different matter.
How many of us deem spiritual, physical and mental peek proficiency as an ultimate state of being? What if I stated that being spiritual doesn't mean one is enlightened!! Being spiritual is simply the acknowledgment of a non-material existence from the acknowledgment of a material existence. In truth, Buddha experienced his enlightenment while at he's lowest level of physical and mental proficiency as of many who have become enlightened. Through this enlightenment, one then realises that a balance between the non-material and the material world is a far wiser way to exist, however, to realise this one must first suffer.
In truth, the only part of us suffering is the ego, of course there is also a difference between suffering from the egos suffering and learning from the egos suffering. Enlightenment simply comes from learning from the egos suffering. Enlightenment is simply all about letting go of the ego, especially of the controlling ways of the ego. The more our egos suffer, the more our egos were in control. Yes, this means that everyone's ego will suffer differently, of course on top of this, some ego's will still suffer from it's own suffering through the unwillingness by the ego to let go of it's control. The ego in this case will suffer to the bitter end and quite expectantly in the views of the enlightened.
I should point out that the first line of my post, "What if I stated that if we were all enlightened beings, not one of us would think twice of experiencing this reality again no matter what our experiences were!!", is of my own recollection and awareness. What you become aware of in the absence of a controlling ego is quite amazing. Of course what you become aware of in the absence of an ego altogether would be totally amazing to say the least.
As I ponder about my aimless life wonderings with no intentions or expectations, I realise I am drifting upon a water so clear that my reflection depicts the environment I am adrift upon. In the absence negatives and positives, good and bad, right and wrong, the waters I am adrift upon are so clear.....Mathew G
Friday, 17 May 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
A young girl was traumatised by a shocking event that occurred to a family, a trauma that sent this young girl into a state of mental isolation and withdrawal. The technique used to help bring this young person out of this state of mental trauma was interesting.
When Emmett approached the young girl, the young girl put her hands on her hips and yelled, "You can't help me." Emmett in return instantly put his hands on his hips and yelled back, "Do you know what a tripod hug is?" The girl then replied, "There is no such thing." Emmett then showed the young girl, of five years old at the time, that tripod hugs do exist from a book Emmett was given on hugs. If Emmett tried to hug this girl or physically treat this girl and not try to reason with this girl on her own level, often deemed too negative to a lot of new age spiritually aware people to go down to, this young girl wouldn't have opened up. In other words stopped suffering from her mental trauma.
Now, try to look at the collective human consciousness as one mind, as one consciousness in obvious severe trauma. If you don't approach this traumatised consciousness on its own level, be it deemed negative or of a lower level than of your own, how is one to truly help this consciousness through it's trauma? Yes, if we ignore all the negatives and lower levels of consciousness apart from our own so-called higher level of consciousness, we will of course deceptively think we are helping this consciousness when were not.
If at any time I approached my disabled clients, often in mental trauma, and tried to preach love and light and /or unconditional love, what do you think would have occurred? Emmett actually instructs his therapists to stay away from using the word love, why? Because the word love can be traumatising to a lot of people, making any therapeutic treatment virtually impossible to successfully implement. Now, how are people of actual hate going to react to love and light and/or unconditional love? In total retaliation. Like Emmett, who had no problem of talking to instead of down to the young girl, talking to a traumatised consciousness in any sense makes a lot more sense than talking down to a consciousness in trauma. Sadly, for a lot of people today trying to help the collective human consciousness in obvious trauma, they are doing a lot more harm than good as the present clearly shows. Yes, they are helping themselves and their own but not the collective consciousness in obvious trauma. Honestly, this approach is actually doing a lot more harm than good only because they obviously have no idea what they are doing.
It would seem, in accordance with my dreams, I have to move aside while the freight train moves by, in a real sense it would seem. In other words get out of the way of the mistreatment of a collective consciousness by another consciousness talking down to the consciousness they say they want to help. If at any time you are talking down to a traumatised consciousness, while perceiving you are of a higher level of consciousness and positive to all else not of your own in any sense, in all honesty, you are adding to the trauma, not helping it. But as my dreams are saying to me, let it all simply unfold, be it that a consciousness has to, at times, learn the hard way, of course this needn't have occurred.
Sunday, 5 May 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
A spiritual teacher is asked to do a presentation on what the teacher is about to a small group of people, they accept. When the time comes, they greet everyone who comes through the door and once this is done, they then place themselves in front of the people and immediately queries, "What are you all doing here?" There is no answer because the people are perplexed by the teachers query.
The spiritual teacher then states, "You are here because you did not listen to your eastern mind, a mind of non-materialism, thought, wisdom and non-controlling ways. You are here because of your western minds material imperfections, distractions and controlling ways."
To the spiritual teacher, there is no question of the eastern mind being positive, right, good, etc, and the western mind being negative, wrong, bad, etc. As of always, and quite naturally too to the western mind, there is an obvious positive and negative in relation to the western and eastern mind. Now, why were the people sitting in front of the spiritual teacher to start with, expecting guidance and answers to life?
A predominant western minded person goes into a jungle alive with carnivorous beasties (beasts). Fear will either save this person or cause the death of the person. Now, an enlightened person of the absence of material imperfections, distractions and controlling ways enters the jungle. The carnivorous beasties react in a totally different way. Instead of being ferocious towards the enlightened person, they react playfully and acceptingly. This is actually occurring with certain people at present, where there interactions with wild carnivorous animals are at the point of being playful. You don't have to be enlightened to experience this, just of the absence of material imperfections, distractions and controlling ways.
The spiritual teacher then poses a question," Am I positive because I am the teacher and you are negative because you are the students fixated to material imperfections, distractions and controlling ways? I am not separate from you as I am not separate from creation as a whole. Whatever is of creation, we are of no matter what the western ego mind desires to only be of. The different being, no matter how much we are connected to all of creation, I am also the teacher as well as the student only because I have also learnt to listen to the eastern mind as well as the western mind."
You will notice that certain spiritual teachers will make note to taking control, especially of the mind. If the teacher mentions to the western mind to tame the mind instead of controlling the mind, what is going to occur, especially when the western mind is known to be all about taking control rather than releasing oneself of control?
It is wise when approaching the western mind, to be expressive of what the western mind comprehends to then understand. However, there are teachers who only approach a mind not dominated by the western mind. The mind approached doesn't have to be predominantly eastern but certainly not predominately controlled by the westernised mind. You will never sway a predominant western mind all about control rather than releasing control to comprehend taming the mind to start with, for only the eastern mind in all of us relates to taming the mind rather than controlling the mind. In saying this, at times while trying to influence the western mind to tame the mind, the eastern mind becomes more dominant, this is because the eastern mind, while not being of control but of releasing control, becomes more influential on the mind itself through recognition of taming the mind.
I actually approach the western mind by pointing out the difference between the eastern and western mind, one is of control, the other of taming. The problem with this to the western mind is, honesty is often not the best policy, this is why many teachers will mention taking control of the mind instead of taming the mind. I should point out here that I am not a spiritual teacher.
The spiritual teacher then goes on to express, "As you are different to all else, doesn't mean you are separate to all else. This also means all else not of your positive is negative, just a different expression of yourself. You can deny that the environment around you is not of you but all this proves is that your western mind is in control. Tame the western mind with eastern minded influences, within this, all that seemed to be negative to your own positive dissipates. The western mind loves perceptions of negatives and positives for this gives the western mind more power and control over our mind and our environment, or so is deceptively perceived by the western mind in control over our minds."
Note: At no time did I read or listen to what is mentioned above in relation to a spiritual teachers presentation, this is wholly my own thoughts of a spiritual teachers starting presentation.
Saturday, 4 May 2019
Written Mathew Naismith
There were two people of different cultures discussing the starvation of people, one person was shocked and appalled by how people are allowed to starve like this, the other person not so shocked and appalled.
To western thinking, allowing people to starve to death is unkind and certainly not of love or spirituality. To eastern thinking it is different because one existence is not separated from any other existence. So to the western mind it is appalling when humans starve to death but it’s not as appalling when animals, including insects, are starved to death!!
In very recent times, a western minded lady I know was diagnosed with terminal cancer. The eastern doctor sat on her bed, put his hand on her knee and said that she had terminal cancer, go home to die because we need the hospital bed. The western minded lady was in shock, not just because of the diagnoses but of how she was treated, especially by an eastern minded doctor.
To the eastern spiritual mind, death doesn’t exist; in fact the perception of death is simply an indication of transition from one life to another. No matter what you experience in life, even if you have suffered from life experiences instead of learning from them, all kinds of life experience’s without exception are worthy to experience. One kind of life is not desired over another no matter what, so if your life experience is to starve to death like any living creation without exception, that is karma or simply the way life is or works. So what does the western mind desire to do, change the way existence is but in service to what? Self-gratification, ego.
You see the western mind took offence to the practicality of the eastern mind; your life’s journey is to starve to death, as your life’s path is to die at home from terminal cancer. Of course in the case of the person diagnosed with terminal cancer, the bed was needed for people that doctors can help, not for people who are beyond help!!
In all honesty, if I was diagnosed with terminal cancer, I would want to go home to allow another person the bed that can be helped, and no, I wouldn’t have been offended by the eastern doctor’s very caring practical honest approach. Yes, shock horror to the western mind, the eastern doctor couldn’t have been more caring, practical and honest if he tried. In saying this, the doctor obviously needed to be aware in how the western individualised self-cantered mind works. Of course to the western mind, ensuing known pointless medical treatment is more caring!! This is like feeding an already starving people to bread more so the chances of them starving in the future are higher!! True, this is how western kindness, love and compassion works, in other words how the western mind works. If it feels good, it has to be good even when it obviously isn’t.
So to the western mind, being spiritual has everything to do with feeling good and being good within the views of the western mind, in other words, being positive instead of negative. You know what? The eastern spiritual mind doesn’t separate everything like this between what is negative and what is positive. In truth to me and people like me, the eastern spiritual mind is all about the collective’s wellbeing, not the individual’s wellbeing of; if it feels good to the individual, it has to be good to the collective. In truth, which the western mind in all cultures is not about, this is simply not the case, not everything that feels good to the ego individually is good for the collective.
In all honesty, the eastern spiritual mind is of the balance of western and eastern thinking. Never expect or even demand that the western spiritual mind thinks like this, this is unless influenced by eastern thinking as well.
I am not of an eastern mind or primarily of an eastern mind but I often balance out the western mind with eastern thinking, as eastern spiritually aware people often do.
Note; when an eastern spiritual mind feeds a starving person, this is different to when a western spiritual mind feeds a person. It is like the love of an eastern spiritual mind is different to a western spiritual mind; there is no attachment to love of an eastern spiritual mind, when the western mind often becomes highly attached to love. Attachments are likened to control, as the western mind is of taking controlling rather than not being of control. The eastern spiritual mind is actually of releasing oneself of control, also meaning to release oneself from attachments even of love. How many western spiritually minded people of love can detach themselves from the feelings of what love gives them? In all honesty, this is all about taking control of retaining fixated attachments the western mind will never give up, unless balanced out by the eastern mind of releasing oneself of control and attachments.
The eastern spiritual mind doesn't have to deal with releasing oneself of control and related attachments because this kind of mind doesn't seek to control but to release oneself of control. There are no attachments even to what the feelings of love can give oneself.
In regards to starving people, there is no difference to starving animals, also, this is there life's journey that we should refrain from taking control of. This is the same with the terminally ill person; refrain from taking control of someone else's life's journey is as loving and caring as a spiritual person can get, but of course the western spiritual mind will understandably always think otherwise through attachments created by being controlling.
Saturday, 20 April 2019
We must remember, non-material evidence, like faith or intuition, is not going to be accepted as evidence of existence by a material consciousness. I often produce material evidence to consciousnesses of materialism, but I have more faith in non-material evidence that is from a consciousness of infinite consciousness, not finite consciousness like material consciousness. However, in a material reality, non-material evidence can become distorted, like our faith or intuition can become overly influenced by materialism.
I have recently been asked to supply evidence or give an example of free will. Giving material evidence to free will is easy. Giving non-material evidence of free will is not easy, not if you want a material mind to comprehend this as evidence. I did find an interesting article on this which I passed on to the person who asked for evidence of free will.
"Over the years I have revisited this paradox many times. In my mid-twenties I wrote a magazine article entitled “And the Opposite is Also True.” There I argued that it was not a question of whether free will or determinism was correct. I postulated that they were like two sides of a coin; two very different perspectives of the same reality. From one perspective determinism is true; from the other free will is true. But as to what these two complementary perspectives might be, I wasn’t clear.
Then last year, in one of those moments of insight, it all fell into place. I realized that the two fundamentally different perspectives stemmed from two fundamentally different states of consciousness."
Two fundamentally different states of consciousness, not one. One consciousness driven by ego (motion), the other by egoless (motionless) but all the same, still of consciousness. You cannot define that there is no free will by deriving at this fact while only considering one type of consciousness, a consciousness of motion (soul) as opposed to motionless, a consciousness in the absence of a soul to start with.
"They find that what we take to be a sense of an omnipresent “I” is simply consciousness itself. There is no separate experiencer; there is simply a quality of being, a sense of presence, an awareness that is always there whatever our experience. They conclude that what we experience to be an independent self is a construct in the mind—very real in its appearance but of no intrinsic substance. It, like the choices it appears to make, is a consequence of processes in the brain. It has no free will of its own."
There is no separate experiencer which gives us the perception there is no free will, however, when many consciousnesses become one, which creates a state of motionlessness, free will is evident. You probably need to experience this to know this. This is like giving birth, how many blokes exactly know what it is like giving birth? When you have not yourself experienced a motionless state, you will of course never know or even want to know that this state is of free will.
"Free will and determinism are no longer paradoxical in the sense of being mutually exclusive. Both are correct, depending upon the consciousness from which they are considered. The paradox only appears when we consider both sides from the same state of consciousness, i.e, the everyday waking state."
"I remember hearing a statement Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said something like: ” We can choose whatever we like, eg plant an orange seed or an apple seed, but once the choice is made, the result is already determined by that choice”. This to me resolved the paradox and made both sides compatible as you suggested."
Try to understand free will though; your environment often determines your actions. In saying this, you are often a reflection of your environment, an environment of your choice or a choice of another within your environment!!
Friday, 19 April 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
I try not to perceive the environment as a whole simply through my own perspectives and perceptions, I like to also explore the environment through different perspectives and perceptions. This brings me to Soul Theory, a book written by a physicist interested in yogi teachings on the soul and how the soul doesn't have free will.
"In relation to God, if God was to be proven to exist without a doubt, God to me still wouldn't exist even when it does. Why? Because when you are one with this God, this yogic consciousness, what then makes a God?
However, seen as many souls are not one with God, this yogic consciousness, there will always be a God, a higher consciousness than our own as there will always be a so-called lower consciousness in existence. Always has been and always will.
In relation to free will. Free will within an unlimited infinite consciousness exists, to freely experience any part of consciousness, even when to experience parts of this consciousness takes one to become unaware of consciousness as a whole, of yogic consciousness.
There are infinite possibilities because yogic, God's consciousness, is not limited to, negatives and positives, free will and non-free will, bad and good, right and wrong. However, when not of God's consciousness, yogic consciousness, we don't have free will because each reality determines our will, but, at any time we can change this reality at will. This is the infinite being of yogic consciousness.
As there is a God but there isn't, there is also free will but there isn't. To me, to say there is no God is to say there is no yogic consciousness when there is, to me anyway.
Each reality literally has infinite possibilities of non-free will but our souls can experience any possibility of any reality at any time. Is my own soul is of a determined outcome to do this? It would seem so at first but once you realise everything is of one consciousness, what I experience, all experience. It is like astral travelling, we all astral travel, it's just our minds can't remember doing this because our human minds are not conditioned to astral travelling. Just because our human minds are unable to see that we have free will, doesn't make it so but the process of thinking this makes us believe we have no free will. We have free will but we don't at the same time.
All existence is predestined, however, there are infinite predestined experiences which can seem like we have free will in relation to existence.
As for yogic consciousness, it exists but it doesn’t!! In certain states, existence has no bearing nor existence but in other states it does. I know for a fact I am not just living for myself as an individual, many other souls are also living my life. One mind, many souls.
Are you correct that a consciousness of existence has no real free will? Yes, but free will exists outside of existence. Can I give an example of this while of existence? No…….
One more thing, can yogic consciousness create something like the universe, consciousness and souls? In my mind yes. I think for souls that only know of existence, calling this consciousness a God is feasible and plausible.
It is good you are still getting interest here in your work Subhendu."
"What is consciousness of freewill?"
Yogic or God's consciousness. Yogic consciousness can be of the accumulation of all consciousnesses, not just a perception of a singular souls consciousness. In other words, a yogic conscious mind can be the accumulation of numerous souls consciousness and even of all souls consciousness. A person can be living for a number of likened souls consciousnesses, numerous consciousnesses working in unison and in peace in one mind and body. Are people with multiple personalities of dissimilar personalities/consciousness experiencing different souls experiencing one mind and body? Possession is a different thing, where one soul takes over the mind and body of a person/soul.
Imagine a yogi being able to create environments, universes, instead of being influenced by environments. Before we are born, we are influenced by the environment, now imagine influencing environments instead of being influenced by environments!! Can you see where free will lays?
"Consciousness cannot exist without a noun, which is a soul."
The soul is motion therefore ego, what then represents an egoless consciousness that is not of motion? Just because our egos are unable to comprehend a motionless egoless consciousness, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Motionless egoless consciousness is not limited to nouns Subhendu, only the ego is.
"Note that freewill is related to actions."
No, freewill is related to the egoless consciousness therefore motion. The absence of free will is wholly of motion therefore ego.
Actually, the existence of freewill or not is highly irrelevant to the egoless self, but of course to the ego self it's everything!! It is like arguing what is truly right and wrong, truth and lies, negative and positive, black and white, it has no relevance to a true yogi/God consciousness Subhendu.
Saturday, 13 April 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
Seeing it as it is, not how I would desire to see it, gets me into a lot of trouble with other people. It is like with love, just because I don't desire to feel the affects of love, in other words lust after what the feelings of love gives to the ego, I am not of love. I simply don't desire to feel the affects of love but allow these feelings to naturally exist, without effort, within certain conscious states. It is natural that within certain conscious states, the ego will experience feelings of love, giving the ego a false ideology that these states are simply of love.
I also don't desire being positive over and above being negative, in all honesty, I simply allow myself to be neutral as much as possible. I have learnt so much from the so-called negatives, way more than from the positives. In all honesty, my ego has learnt from these experiences instead of suffering from these experiences. To me, to suffer from an experience is to counteract a negative experience with a positive experience. This is the same in counteracting hate with love, most often to the same degree or to the same excess. Within this, one to me is still suffering from the collective consciousness experience rather than learning from the collective conscious experience.
How shocking it was practicing in cannibalism or going to see people fight to the death in a Roman arena, but it is alright to deliberately make people ill so you can live/feed off of them. I recently read an article in how doctors who dared find cancer enzymes in vaccines systematically died/murdered. And how many people are fighting for there very existence, not just in wars but materialistically? The whole planet has become an arena that was deliberately created to serve the few materialistically. In all honesty, are we learning from what human consciousness has experienced or are we still suffering from these experiences?
I will always be hated or despised for my honesty; I would rather this than the alternative of course. Simply, self-dishonesty isn't an alternative for people like me, we must see it how it is, not how our egos would desire to see it. As I am not into separation as in black and white people instead of just people, I am not into negatives and positives. Don't' be conned by the controlling ego that desires to separate through perceptions of black and white, negative and positive perceptions, negative and positives are simply perceptions created by the ego. You really don't need to be positive, just not negative, within this you will be able to see everything for what it really is, not how the ego desires to only see it, in black and white, negatives and positives!!
Sunday, 7 April 2019
Wisdom I know is social. She seeks
her fellows. But Beauty is jealous,
and illy bears the presence of a rival.
Written by Mathew Naismith
As it is said from a Jewish view point, "Wisdom is the perfection of knowledge of the righteous as a gift from God showing itself in action. In direct relation to God, Wisdom is with God from all eternity." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Wisdom
So is this saying that in the absence of the perception of God, wisdom is also absent? The Jewish and Christian perspective on this would be to say yes, in the absence of God, wisdom is also absent!!
As it is said intellectually, wisdom is of an accumulated knowledge, erudition or enlightenment. Wisdom is also said to be of the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight. Also, an ability to apply knowledge, experience, understanding or common sense and insight.
The perception of wisdom comes in many forms, as the perception of God or whatever you want to call this wise and aware consciousness. Wisdom to me is simply in the absence of a controlling ego. Within this absence of the controlling ego, wisdom is present. Within the presence of a controlling ego, wisdom is absent. Can we also relate this to, in the absence of a controlling ego, God is present. In the presence of a controlling ego, God is absent in man's consciousness. To me, the perception of God relates to the presence of wisdom no matter how wisdom is exemplified or presented. Of course the ego in control will of course try to separate one from the other, if you are not of God, you are not of wisdom. I instead look at it this way, if you are in the presence of the controlling ego with all it's desires and lusts for control, material wealth, power and even the desires of ethereal pleasures of love in any form, the perception of wisdom therefore God is also absent. Love expressed through wisdom isn't of lust but of a purer expression of love in the absence of a controlling ego.
A consciousness of God to me simply exemplifies wisdom and awareness no matter how you want to exemplify or call this kind of consciousness. Even in the absence of the perception of God as such, wisdom can still be present as long as the controlling ego is absent. Religious people will call this kind of consciousness God, other people will call it something else but it is still of the same consciousness no matter how we exemplify this consciousness. God simply means a consciousness of the absence of a controlling ego, thus allowing wisdom to not just be present eternally but flourish. Yes, even in a reality such as ours, wisdom can flourish but only in the absence of a controlling ego. The ego is of course still present but the ego is no longer in control where wisdom is allowed to flourish. However, being of man's reality, wisdom in this case is never meant to be eternally present, it is something man's consciousness has to always work at.
Friday, 5 April 2019
Written by Mathew Niasmith
What is the first thing the ego does here? Dissimilarly separates one consciousness from the other in relation to the ego's perception. All the above and more is of the same consciousness, it is just the ego only desires to see what the consciousness physically relates to rather than what the form actually represents consciously. In other words, instead of looking at the physical aspect of consciousness, look at the non-physical aspect of consciousness. How many people worship a physical idol while forgetting what the idle actually represents consciously? For example, how many atrocities have been acted out in the name of Jesus or the cross of Jesus?
Now, how many people today are dissimilarly separating love from wisdom and even love from God? As I wrote recently when I didn't relate love and wisdom, "Good point but with wisdom comes love ever so naturally as if by magic. Yes, multinationals have a very strong and passionate love of money and power but in the absence of wisdom, all this love creates is chaos and destruction. We have love but we don't have the wisdom in implementing this love constructively and peacefully. This is like we don't have the wisdom to use technology. Yes, we are intelligent but do we have the wisdom to know how to use this intelligence, like with love?
Love has always been present but the wisdom in how to use love, as of intelligence, hasn't."
Is love the key? Without wisdom of balance, meaning, wisdom naturally creates a balance as of love, love can become exceptionally destructive and chaotic. The key isn't love but wisdom of balance, the ability to constructively use love, not abusively use love. This is often in the absence of the ego or at least consciously taking away the control of the ego over our own consciousness. Mentioning a constructive peaceful love in the absence of wisdom of balance is pure ego, nothing more, which so often occurs these days. Take away the control of the ego, all you have left is pure wisdom that naturally creates, love, peace, balance and so much more.........
Sunday, 31 March 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
Are negative people untrue where positive people are true? This would be like saying that people who have experienced and suffered extreme trauma are untrue people, while the people who have not suffered trauma are true people. All traumas have some kind of negative affect to them, this doesn't mean that all the people who have suffered from traumas are untrue, in actuality quite the opposite. You are simply being what the trauma has created. Even if you are still suffering from the trauma instead of learning from the trauma, you are still a true person in relation to the trauma experienced. An untrue person would simply try to make out that they are positive when in actuality they are still suffering. How many suicide victims seem happy but are in fact suffering big time. When you are untrue to yourself, you are untrue to everyone else.
Now, how many people are suffering in relation to what is going on in the world at present? This is while we seem positive only because we avoid the negatives as much as possible. So avoiding the negatives in the world to be positive will instantly make the negatives simply vanish? In all honesty, all this has created in past history is more of the same. In truth, being untrue to ourselves in this way simply encourages the very same negatives we are trying to avoid to flourish even more so, thus in turn creating an untrue reality.
People like me don't try to attract positive people, if you are suffering, show that you are suffering even if this seems to you or other people to be negative therefore of an untrue person. Be what you are suffering from but learn from this suffering instead of continuing to suffer from suffering. In other words learn from our present reality and stop suffering from this reality by ignoring the negatives to be or seem positive.
In all honesty, being positive or negative takes a huge amount of energy to obtain and sustain, especially in a critically judged negative reality. How many people are suffering even more so when we ignore the negatives to be positive? That is a huge waste of energy through simple neglect and abuse of energy. The trick in dealing with negatives to be positive, is to stop suffering from the negatives by seeing them as a negative to avoid to be positive. Instead, learn to not judge what is and isn't negative and positive, therefore, what is and isn't true or of a true person.
So what makes a true person? A person who is primarily honest with themselves. If you are suffering from trauma either collectively or individually, let it be what it actually is instead of what you desire it to be. Try to do this in the absence of positive and negative judgment. When you do this, start to learn from your experiences instead of suffering from your experiences. Simply being aware of this will certainly start you on the way of being of self-honesty, therefore a truer person to yourself and others around you.
So how do you attract people who are truer to themselves and others? Being in the presence of self-honesty, while in the absence of negatives and positives, will instantly have an affect on the people who are not of self-honesty around you. Self-dishonesty or being untrue cannot exist within the same immediate space as self-honesty, expressions of self-honesty simply disperses dishonesty thus allowing self-honesty, truer people, the space to flourish in. It is not that you are attracting truer people exactly; it is that you have more space in your life for self-honest people to flourish and express themselves freely in. See it as closing one door thus allowing another door to open. One door, one reality, has to close for another reality, another door, to open.
"Who are the people that positive
people can help the most?
What people are often avoided the
most by positive people?
In all honesty,
how positive is this really?
Only in the absence of positives and
negatives can the neediest be attended to!!"
Saturday, 23 March 2019
Written by Mathew Naismith
Physical: Involving the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit
In all honesty, the more of the spirit we become, the more physical we become, sounds really dopy (silly) doesn't it? Consider this though, the less dense one is, the more physical one can become. Considering mass, which we relate to being physical, makes us less physical therefore less physically active. Once you lighten mass, for example your own body weight from a heavy mass body weight, how more active physically do you become? Our mind, body and spirit as whole works the same way. Once you lesson the weight of thinking or change the way we think to a more lighter way of thinking, for example, thinking in less of trauma, negative and positive, hate, etc, the lighter our minds become.
If you look into some of the ancient teachings and narratives of old, a prime example is Hinduism, you will find how a much lighter thinking mind can accomplish physically. Of course to a denser mind, teachings and narratives like this will simply be of fables and totally disregarded as being a fact of life. Of course this is partly true; it can never be a fact of life in a much denser reality created and controlled by a much denser mind!!
Still sounds dopy? How physically active do we become when astral travelling? When we become less of mass and more of the spirit, the chances of experiencing astral travel or projection is physically increased, especially when we become more of the astral body, the soul, than what we call the physical body. When we primarily focus on mass in relation to the mind and body, our much lighter astral body is often forgotten or not considered in the first place to exist by a much denser mind. Lighten this psychical mind and astral travelling becomes a natural occurrence. What can also occur is that you will interact a lot more with light minded entities within the rest of existence as well, if you choose or they choose to do so. We will also realise that our mind isn't just of the physical brain. In actually we will become aware that the consciousness of our physical brain comes from a far less denser source of consciousness, from a collective consciousness rather than of individualistic consciousness's.
As I have always been aware that what we call a physical existence isn't really all that physical, simply a denser form primarily focused on our physicality, I have also been aware that spirituality isn't confined or limited to the spirit but to the balance between mind, body and spirit.