Manifested Reality!!

 

Written by Mathew Naismith

I would like to say that the following is but from my own perceptions, perspectives and experiences, at no time am I stating that the following is real for other consciousnesses that are governed by other perceptions, perspectives and experiences. Often a consciousness of one reality will be unable to adhere to perceptions, perspectives and even experiences from another reality. A good example of this is the belief in a God and within an opposing reality, the belief that there is no God, two different realities that at times express similar attributes. To disbelieve in a God firstly takes the belief in a God, to disbelieve in!!

Seen as I have already mentioned God, does God, this kind of consciousness, primarily represent a physical entity or a non-physical entity? Yes, often through religion God takes on a physical form, while this consciousness seems to be primarily non-physical.

What we perceive within this reality to be physical and what is seen as physical in other realities is quite different. Humans relate a physical reality to form and mass, not to motion and consciousness. A reality based on form and mass is actually less physical than a reality based on motion and consciousness. If you believe that a far more aware and wiser consciousness created this universe, did not this consciousness, of the absence of form and mass but of the presence of motion and consciousness, create a universe of form and mass?

It is the type of motion and consciousness that determines a reality, in our case a reality based on form and mass. Think on this, does not everything man creates firstly come from a reality of motion and consciousness, a mental abstract? As to disbelieve firstly takes a belief to disbelieve in, within the process a belief creating a disbelief. It is the same with motion and consciousness creating form and mass.

It is how it is done, not that it shouldn't be done!!

Motion and consciousness is far more of a physical aspectual reality than a physical reality of form and mass. Can form and mass create consciousness and motion? Many believe so without any evidence to how consciousness was developed in the first place. What if consciousness and motion within a timeless state always existed!! Of course we have an idea that form and mass didn't always exist due to form and mass being reliant on time, a starting point of creation. Motion and consciousness is not reliant on time to exist therefore a starting point of creation.

Yes, many people throughout human history have made reference to this consciousness and motion, predominantly calling this state not based on time but timelessness God. Think on this, why wouldn't you call this kind of state of consciousness and motion God, a consciousness and motion purely governed by an infinite eternal state of existence? Now, how is a consciousness primarily if not entirely based on form and mass going to be able to comprehend this state of existence? We are expecting a state of the finite comprehending a state of infinite!! It will be denied to the bitter end.

Now for the cruncher.

Should everything of this state of motion and consciousness become manifested within a reality based on form and mass? A reality based on form and mass is what it is, trying to turn this kind of reality into a reality based on motion and consciousness is of futility. The infinite does not belong within the same state as the finite, they are two very different states in that one creates the other, it does not replace the other, however, this state of the infinite of motion and consciousness can greatly enhance a reality of form and mass. At no time is the infinite supposed to replace the finite. This means that, for example, love and light is not supposed to replace hate and dark, but to simply enhance what is of love and light, in the process nullifying the effects that hate and dark have upon a reality based on form and mass. Yes, there is a great deal of love and light within realities of form and mass, it is just hate and dark are more active within this kind of reality. You see love and light often consciously becomes less motional therefore less active in realities of form and mass than hate and dark. It is not that we should become less of motion therefore less active but less expressive of motions based on hate and dark.

The question is not if we should become active within what we manifest, but how we become active in what we manifest!!

Beyond Human Consciousness

Written by Mathew Naismith

“It will take nothing to be said, we will just know as if we always knew. As when the time comes we will simply just know, as if by magic what seemed absent in our life will materialise.”

Boy, I can't believe I am going to go into this, not just because of myinitial following of atheistic doctrines and beliefs/disbelief's in my younger days, but because speaking of God's consciousness seems to be so unbecoming these days. In some areas this is called a higher consciousness but of course anything of the awareness and wisdom greater than present human consciousness, can be refereed to as a higher consciousness. God consciousness is a specific consciousness, a consciousness not governed or controlled by time therefore ego, it is a consciousness in the absence of time while having the awareness of time. Yes, you can relate this consciousness to religion but this consciousness is not of religion. Religion and spiritual teaching across the board help a less aware consciousnesses to comprehend this consciousness, in the process assisting balancing out time and related ego to time within realities of time. As when nature is at it's best when in balance, so is consciousness.

I person of spiritual reasonability was recently being berated for mentioning so-called toxic vibrational words like war and conflict.

The sun is one of the most violent and destructive entities in the universe, how many of us feel toxic vibrations emanating from the sun every time the sun rises? In fact watching the sun rising and setting can be quite a magical time, for some of us.

Transhumanism; is a philosophical movement that advocates for the transformation of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies able to greatly modify or enhance human intellect and physiology.

Transhumanism has to be a joke but it's not, transhumanism simply represents the endless gorging of the ego.

Ever been close to this God consciousness? You realise you where never separated from this consciousness but simply had a perception of separation. Whatever man does to feed his egos lusts and desires, will only lead man to believe in this separation. This kind of love is simply of lust, certainly not of a true sense of love, for within this God consciousness the ego is not in control. This comes from a person who was once an atheist but never religious, just simply interested in wisdom and awareness from whatever speaks of this wisdom and awareness.

You won't find eternalism in anything created in time, if it is born in time, it is supposed to die in time. So creating something born in time to be somehow truly eternal is not going to occur, only in this God consciousness, what Buddhism calls a state of pure awareness or nothingness, can eternalism truly exist. Actually, only a true sense of love can exist within this state, all else is determined by ego in one way or another due to being time based defined, therefore of lust and desire to one extent or another.

Whatever man does in time comes nowhere near to this God consciousness for a very good reason, man and his consciousness is defined by time. However, being aware therefore partly of this God consciousness, can bring a sense of eternal being and love from a state of God, but this takes not perceiving a separation from this God consciousness. To do this the ego cannot be in control, in other words to desire to be more than what one is in time. This is very important, avoid desiring to be more than what one is within time. Avoid trying to make time based realities of realities of this God's consciousness, time based realities are of and governed by completely different aspectual determinines. In other words time, the finite, is based on quite different principles than timelessness, the infinite, for example, the ego that is absent in this God's consciousness but is prevalent in time based consciousness.

So this is why I have been sitting on this post for a week.

If you are having a hard time of the present, don't read on. It is not that it is negative, in truth quite compelling, but I do go into possession, where a consciousness of inhumanity presently resides within part of human consciousness.

As a consciousness of inhumanity would say it, we are born inherently evil, of inhumanity. The truth of the matter is that we can be born into an external consciousness that is of a consciousness of inhumanity. It is very unlikely that a soul possessed by a consciousness of inhumanity can become humanly born. Why? The risk of humanity within human consciousnesses influencing a child born of inhumanity is still at this point great, however, if human consciousness becomes totally possessed by a consciousness of inhumanity, yes, a soul of inhumanity can be born into human consciousness. This means that we can then within this environment become born inherently evil but only then.

So what do we do, conduct in a huge exorcism of human consciousness?

No. Through various consciousnesses this God consciousness is very much alive, any true depiction of this consciousness, no matter how minuscule, hinders and even subtly expels a consciousness of inhumanity possessing human consciousness within it's entirety. I can't tell you how I know this but this is exactly what this consciousnesses of inhumanity desires or lusts after to do, possess (control) all of human consciousness. Every little bit of inhumanity, hurt, human consciousness experiences, the further down a consciousness of inhumanity human consciousness goes.

Imagine for a moment a consciousness where inhumanity is absent, where deliberate hurt upon any consciousness is simply non-existent. There is simply no consciousness of inhumanity to expel. Human consciousness has not been this fortunate and the reason for this lays in that human consciousness still predominantly perceives in time. Instead of this God consciousness of the infinite predominantly influencing human consciousness, a finite consciousness of inhumanity is trying to predominantly influence human consciousness.

Within time there is always two sides, duality, day and night, negative and positive, black and white, good and bad, etc. A consciousness of humanity keeps this duality existence in balance, but a consciousness of inhumanity tries to keep this duality existence imbalanced. The equilibrium of consciousness in this state is distorted or deformed from a state of formity, where one type of conscientiousness puts itself as being a higher hierarchy consciousness above any other consciousness not of it's own. This is very evident to what is presently occurring in the USA.

The exorcism simply turns into the expelling of inhumanity within humanity by simply being more of this God's consciousness than a consciousness of inhumanity. As I have experienced myself even in this life, this consciousness of inhumanity cannot exist within the same space as a consciousness of humanity. See it like this, humanity = the infinite, inhumanity = the finite. All we have to do is reawaken ourselves that we are of infinite being, of this God's consciousness, not just of the finite and a consciousness of inhumanity, to expel this consciousness of inhumanity from humanity.

Deep Within Our Consciousness

Written by Mathew Naismith

Reference is made to BD and RD in the following. According to my friend I am presently in interaction with, BD and RD is referred to as below.

RD = God is the creator of the universe, as used by Christians and Hindus.

BD = “God is the spirit” as mentioned in the Bible and Samkhya (Vedas).

 

What you need to do xxxxxxx is go to a yogi, shaman or alike and ask to experience a timeless state and then come back to me. I can guarantee that your stance on freewill and God would have changed, of course you have to have the will to do this to start with. If you have written that freewill doesn't exist, point blank, this is unlikely to occur and understandably so. 

If you can prove the existence of any kind of God form in and through time, it is not truly a God form, for a true representation of God doesn't exist within a finite existence, only a perception of. You say you have proof of a BD God exists and that an RD God doesn't exist, I am going to suggest this is false. This is like saying that I can prove that water exists in the same exact space as extreme heat, or that light is as present within the darkness as darkness is. How about proving that a mountain is a flat plane!! To me, anyone who has unequivocal proof that a God exists within time, a materiel state based on the finite, I have to dismiss as being a human perceived falsity. 

Everything is written, meaning, that all scenarios that can be experienced is preordained, this doesn't mean freewill doesn't exist. Through the perception of time and a consciousness predominantly conditioned to and by time, freewill seems to not exist. This is like God doesn't seem to exist for a lot of people and understandably so. However, once our consciousness is conditioned to timelessness, the infinite, God and freewill perceived to exist, even though God or freewill can't be proven to exist in time, the finite, but only perceived.        

"There are many videos that say our technology came from the UFO-ETs."

Videos based on a consciousness conditioned to time, the finite, not the infinite xxxxxxx. As you have said yourself, it is all already written, this means everything is preordained way before the creation of aliens or of any form based on time. Our intelligence, awareness, wisdom, knowledge, technology, etc, comes from a source way before any forms creation, as you stated yourself, it is already written.  This makes no sense, as you say, our technology comes from aliens, while everything is preordained thus giving us no freewill!! You are obviously still not going deep enough, beyond the conditioning of time, this is too obvious xxxxxxx.

As I have stated before, get back to me once you have conditioned your consciousness to the infinite, while at the same time desisting in predominantly focusing on time based consciousness and existence.  You have proven to me many times this is exactly what you are doing xxxxxxx. 

My patience with you xxxxxxx is unquestionable is it not?

In the Presence of Wisdom

Wisdom I know is social. She seeks

her fellows. But Beauty is jealous,

and illy bears the presence of a rival.

~Thomas Jefferson~

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. 

Love, God, Wisdom, Fairies, Etc

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.........      

The Perception of God

Written by Mathew Naismith

Try to keep in mind before reading the following, I was brought up as an atheist and I have never followed a religion or any other ideology or ism in my life. What I have exercised in, after extracting myself from the doctrines of atheism, is finding reason within all the ideologies and isms man has created in discovering the environment man exists in. This of course includes the perception of God.

Before I go on, I would like to share with you a dream I had last night. As usual as in an awakened state, I was looking in all the nooks and crannies I could for whatever presents itself. I usually do this in the absence of bias as a lot of ideologies and isms can create a great deal of bias at times. I saw this cave so I of course decided to investigate even though this cave was quite dark. The cave didn't turn out to be a cave and I found myself looking out over an ocean. I was in awe while listening to the wave's crash on shore. The ocean was quite rough but still so beautiful. I then decided to in my dream on purpose think of the perception of God, what occurred then was quite amazing.

When you are consciously aware that you are having a dream, this is called lucid dreaming. In this state of dreaming, you are able to consciously influence the dream; in my case it was to do with an experiment to see how the perception of God changes my dream. As I said, I like to look into all the nooks and crannies, into all the possibilities in the absence of a much bias as possible. I thought the scenery was beautiful before. As soon as I had a perception of God, the ocean was no longer rough and everything simply sparkled. It is as if everything came alive.

Don't make the mistake and think religion is of God or has to be of God, religion is simply one of many tools for man to investigate he's environment as a whole. As of a lot of atheists who totally denounce that a consciousness can exist outside of the physical brain in accordance with atheistic doctrines, religion can have its own biases as well as human history clearly shows. As history clearly shows, not everyone of religion was of God, far more of the church than God sadly enough. You see, to be of God or have a perception of God has very little to do with religion but religion can keep us in touch with God or the perception of God.

It is also important not to separate religion from science. Take Hinduism for example, where science has always been apart of the religion of Hinduism. How many modern day scientists believe in a God and/or follow a religion of one kind or another?

So many people today are denouncing God just because of the perceptions of religion has in relation to God. In all honest truth, what would we know? We can't actually know so we can only perceive through various religions in relation to God. Try to remember, not everyone of a religion is of the perception of God as history quite clearly shows us, actually quite the opposite at times. Yes, as of any ideology or ism created by man to investigate and examine his environment, the ideology or ism to do this is only as perfect as man himself, considering man isn't perfect, denouncing God just because of a number of indiscretions in religious history, isn't exactly a wise of unbiased way of reasoning. Man is not perfect therefore it is quite unreasonable to expect his created ideologies and isms to be perfect. I actually expect them to be imperfect before expecting them to be perfect, within this, a reasonable an unbiased deduction can be formed. How perfect is numerous science theories taken as being fact? Even some of Albert Einstein's theories that were taken as fact are being questioned as science should to evolve.        

What I have exercised through life is an unbiased culmination of the universe being created by a far more aware and wiser consciousness. If you culminate all the research on out of body experiences (OBE's), reincarnation, CERN, that scientists can create mini universes and on it goes, I would have to be a total ignoramus or a very ignorant atheist to ignore all this evidence. Of course not all atheists are this ignorant, just not convinced enough to believe which is fair enough. Having been an atheist, it is amazing how bias one can get when you religiously follow atheistic doctrines. Of course the same can be the case for religious people as well as history clearly shows again.

God or the perception of God doesn't follow a certain religion; religion simply follows a perception of God or whatever you want to call a more aware and wiser consciousness than our own to be. As of my dream, the perception of God changed my scenery to something even more beautiful and spectacular. In a time of chaos, deception and destruction, what is so wrong in having this kind of perception? My subconscious and consciousness obviously perceives God to be a changer of worlds, but only through our own awakening and intervention.         

Mystic Thoughts

Written by Mathew Naismith

Rumi

Someone asked, “What is love?” I answered,

“You will know when you become ‘we.’”

http://acropolis.org.au/rumi-the-mystic/

Try to remember, the perception of God here represents one consciousness, a state of oneness, a singular consciousness instead of numerous separate consciousnesses.  

We, is in reference to no exceptions of negative and positive, bad and good, wrong and right, theist and atheist, black and white, dark and light. An example, I am of the light; you being of the dark are not accepted as we.

Love and light is not in counteraction or opposition to hate and dark, only through a perception of hate and dark can this be perceived. Too many people today use love and light in counteraction or opposition, this is not we but I, a separation by the ego from a perceived opposing motion!!

Has love and/or light an opposite? For many people, love and/or light doesn't have an opposite, this is of hate and dark perceptions. Why? We first think an opposite refers to oppositions, when only in hate and dark perceptions can this be perceived.

The Western mind in all of us is about separation therefore creates opposition, hate.

The Eastern mind in all of us is about union therefore creates compatibility, love.

God represents a singular consciousness therefore love no matter of what motion, for example of motion, dark and light. This doesn't mean this singular consciousness is loving, it simply means it's of love. The Western mind perceives God is loving when this singular consciousness, represented by what we call God, is of love, there is a difference.

Humans, in their separate forms, are loving, be it through God or anti-God. This singular consciousness, God, void of separation is this love humans express. It is also wise to be aware that opposites are only in opposition when perceived separations occur!!      

Philosophy - Environmental Creations

Written by Mathew Naismith

Philosophy, as of any other thinking process, is influenced by the environment the philosophy is influenced by; this includes the knowledge and awareness that the  philosophy is based or influenced by. A wise philosopher will never see another philosophy created under another environment as being incorrect to theirs; it's simply a different form of correctness based on the environment a philosophy is created under.

A person I greatly respect, mainly due to them being able to think right outside the square, outside normal human conditionings, replied to me with the following in regards to my last post, "Atheism Is Quite Correct."

.     

___________________________

Reply

I wouldn't exactly say that some of your statements are clear and unambiguous.

For many people Christ was the greatest philosopher of all time because of His ability to explain spiritual truths in a way that everyone can easily understand.

Christ often used simple stories called parables to explain those truths using examples from nature like how a tree produces fruit or how the weeds and the wheat must grow together until the harvest.

He also used examples based on human nature and the interactions that occur between people like forgiveness and kindness.

My Reply

A very good point to bring up Jeff.

How often is Jesus messages misunderstood or not understood at all? As of any philosophy, expressing philosophy using a particular environment is fine to the people who can relate to that environment, what about the people who can't relate to that environment!!

I put a Cambodian lass under my wing, I looked after her. This lass tried to assimilate into our culture to the point of trying to become a Christian and comprehend Christianity, she simply couldn't because the doctrines of Christianity didn't relate to her Buddhist environment. As I explained to her, her incomprehensibility did not make Christian doctrines and beliefs incorrect, they were simply not correct for her within her present environment.              

I also find it difficult to explain the unexplainable, words are limiting in regards to explaining about a consciousness way beyond the explanation of words. A lot of my topics seem to go beyond the explanation of words at times.

If you keep your philosophies within certain limitations, as Jesus did, using your environment to explain what you are philosophising about is easy. Of course even this, as history shows, can be incomprehensible to people of a different environment.

Your environment dictates what is correct and incorrect to you, what is comprehensible and incomprehensible to you. The beliefs and doctrines that influence our comprehensibility is an environment that is most often bias. We will naturally express bias while influenced by a particular environment, this is human consciousness. How bias and incomprehensible are rich people to poor people's dilemmas? This is their environment which makes being poor incorrect. 

What I find interesting is that people of other cultures than a western based culture, comprehend my writings a lot easier than people of a western based culture. This is interesting because a lot of eastern philosophies include short stories that relate to the environment.

When I can or it is feasible or I think of it, I do use my environment to explain where I am coming from, as I have explained, I find this difficult to do at times.

Thanks for trying to assist me by the way Jeff, always appreciated.

 ___________________________

I think Jeff wanted me to be more comprehensible on topics like this, explain myself in simpler ways and in ways that people relate to. If you can explain yourself in ways that people relate to, for example making reference to the source of all creation is less relative to most people than making reference directly to God, what you are explaining about will be more comprehensible. Trying to relay anything that other people in different environments are not conditioned to and comprehensible of is always going to be difficult.

Example: Explaining Christianity to a Buddhist or an atheist is going to be a lot harder than explaining about Christianity to a Christian and visa-versa, again it's all to do with the environment we are conditioned to.

When I say that atheism is correct in relation to there being no God, this is in relation to Buddhist (eastern) atheism. Once you reach pure awareness, what then defines a God when you are one with God, one with this state of pure awareness? However, the depiction or perception of a God, of this pure aware state, while in separation of this state of God, is to me paramount to our existence. There is simply no future in separation from this source no matter what you call it.

You can always explain yourself better so more people can comprehend what you are saying, what I actually focus on are the people who are able to comprehend me anyway. As I have been for a lot of people, conformation is always comforting; no matter how I explain myself these people will always comprehend where people like me are coming from.

People like me don't need to reach more people; we are simply conformation for a few people, not many people. I should also say it's a two way street, I have myself received conformation in the way I am thinking off of other people, it is the way it's meant to be.           

Atheism Is Quite Correct

Written by Mathew Naismith

The question of what is or isn’t correct is a funny one only because the perception of correctness is as varied and as numerous as our perceptions. To get a grasp on this one needs to look at how many different people there are, not just by race or by cultural diversity but how everyone is physically and mentally different. Is one way to look and think more correct than another way to look and think? It really comes down to what is accepted which is governed by what is accepted as being correct. If it’s not accepted, it’s usually not correct, in all, correctness is usually and mostly governed by what is accepted.

For someone like me who is quite accepting, correctness can be seen in various and even opposing perceptions and ideologies, within this way of perceiving there is no absolute correctness, there are only variations of correctness. This simply means atheism is a variation of correctness, not of absolute correctness like any other created ideological ism.

So why am I saying atheism is correct? To answer this we must first look at why I think religion is correct, especially in relation to God and divine entities.

In recent times we have seen science create the God particle and most recently a mini-universe. The question science is rightfully and wisely asking now is if man can create such things, what would a far more aware intelligent consciousness be able to create? Of course the universe we exist in comes to mind. In the whole scheme of things I don’t think man’s wisdom, awareness or intelligence rates very highly but even in this conscious state man is able to create or mimic the creation of the universe through science perspectives.

The religious perspective was to get a far less intelligent, literate and aware consciousness, in ancient times, to perceive that the universe was created by a far more aware consciousness than man. Even today religion isn’t incorrect in this as science is showing. Religion, as of any ideological ism, is governed by what is or isn’t accepted. How would you be able to get a less aware and intelligent consciousness to be able to perceive through science perspectives? This simply would not have been accepted therefore comprehended. In actuality the perception of a creator of the universe was highly intelligent in my mind, especially in ancient times.

Atheism was to accept what religious establishments were unable or unwilling to accept, perceptions and perspective based on a different kind of what is and isn’t accepted. Of course you do have one of the oldest surviving religions that also incorporate science perspectives and perceptions to one degree or another, in actuality a lot of religions today are more accepting of science perspectives and perceptions. On the other hand you have a number of new age spiritual people who totally denounce science, science perspectives and perceptions are simply not accepted therefore correct.

Atheism simply avoids calling the creator of our universe a God, a divine entity, there is no idolisation or of giving thanks and a show of appreciation to our creator. If we are of this creator, this divine consciousness, what is there to idolise and/or show appreciation to? Of course you also have atheists who can never accept that our universe was created by a far more aware consciousness; their doctrines are simply unaccepting of this. You also have atheists who look at everything created as ego, an illusion. Each perception is simply governed by what is and isn’t accepted therefore correct.

To me, the closer to the source we become, the more we become aware we have always been one with this source. If we were all aware that we are one with this source, what would then be perceived as a God?  You have to have a perception of separation to have a perception of God separate to ourselves. Yes, the separation is real but it's still simply a perception of separation, there is no true separation only a perception of separation, within this, we perceive the creator as a God and rightfully so in a state of separation in my mind.

In all, to someone like me, is atheism correct within their own perceptions and the answer would have to be yes, however, this does not mean that religion is incorrect within their own perceptions, it simply means that each ideological ism is correct within what their own doctrines are accepting of.

No ideological ism is totally correct but they’re not totally incorrect either, it’s all governed by what we accept and don’t accept as being correct. In all, what would any of us truly know……….    

A True Sense of Love!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

There is a lot of reference to God in my following replies that I gave to another person recently, a person who approached me with there own ideas of what a true sense of love is.

God is in reference to oneness and unconditional love, it represents the whole self as opposed to man's separateness of the self from others and the environment man doesn't desire to be of. Yes, we can create our own reality separate from the collective conscious reality, however, at no point within our own desired reality are we ever separate from the collective consciousness.

We certainly have a different perception of love, this perception will create the reality we personally create. This perceptional reality we create isn't for everyone; it's wise to be aware of this while expressing one's own reality.

If you don't feel like reading through all the comments by me here, I recommend reading the last comment, it sort of explains everything, however, there are a few good points made by me in reference to the other replies by me like, "Love is acquired, not desired......."   

 _______________________________

Reply 1

Well my friend, what can I say.......

What you have written here very few people will comprehend Nagual, what you are unable to comprehend, you certainly won't understand.

In relation to my wife and I; if my wife found more happiness in someone else, would my love for my wife be happy for my wife or sad?

Desire dictates sadness and even bitterness, this is not me or my wife for it is not about our desires but the happiness of other people we truly love. Desire always dictates otherwise. 

Not many people truly comprehend the true sense of love, if they are unable to comprehend a true sense of  love, how are they then able to understand a true sense of love?

What did Jesus do? There was no desire, it was simply a true sense of love otherwise he wouldn't have sacrificed himself for of what he loved. Actually, he's actions were not sacrificial at all; it was pure love, not easy for us to even comprehend in regards to our present conditioning to desires above all else.

I am not religious myself but I often make reference to God and even the holey trinity, to a lot of people's discussed sadly enough. I am simply not inhibited by such a limited consciousness.

Be Always Blessed,

Mathew 

Reply 2

In my mind it should have something to do with relationships, in actuality human consciousness as a whole. To separate one from the other isn't of God but of man.

Love of another shouldn't be based on desire but of God, yes, desire to be with another but not of love of another. If I was not to love my wife as God, my love would simply be of a desire. How many people desire to feel love? This is simply desire Nagual and of man, not of God.

Love is acquired, not desired.......

_______________________________

I added the following in ( ) to a post that was presented to me in regards to the following. A true sense of love doesn't separate one from the other, a true love through God, a sense of oneness, is to not separate but to unite.    

 _______________________________

 Reply 3

I love you for your bright ideas (and your dull ideas)
I love you for your Good energy (and your bad energy)
I love you for your pure intentions (and your impure intentions)
I love you for your wise decisions (and your unwise decisions)
I love you for your righteousness (and your unrighteousness)
I love you for your beliefs (and your disbeliefs)
I love you for your endless smile (and your frown)
I love you for the help you offer to the world (and the help you don't give to the world)
I love you too because through you

I see all my beauty too (and my ugliness as well)

Reply 4

It's not good stating so often do you understand now, too evangelistic like for me. My advice is to not put yourself so much above everybody else.

I worked in the welfare arena twice over in my life, do you understand now? I've given myself while under a huge amount of trauma.   

I'm simply not into creating a Goddess out of love, love is not the be and end all and should never be treated as such in my mind. Try truly loving void of truly accepting. If you can only accept love, this is anything but unconditional love or acceptance.

If your acceptance has conditions, so does your love Nagual, it's this simple.......

Reply 5

I think so much and analyse!! You have no idea Nagual, so much just comes through me not from me.

Within your reply here, you are putting yourself above me, this is too obvious, no thought necessary in this.

I spoke with an 84 year old Yoga teacher tonight, if you have to feel love to express love, you have conditions of your love to have to feel love. It's simply a desire, not of God's unconditional love.

Try expressing love void of having to feel love. I have been expressing this kind of love most of my life, not just a few years as of yourself as you have depicted.

How many people predominantly have to feel love to express love? This kind of love has insurmountable conditions as it's based on desiring to feel love over and above expressing love.

Reply 6

Very well articulated Kim. 

I worked with disabled people, they often don't have bright ideas, so called good energy, pure intentions, wise in decision and so on it goes. I also look at multinationals as disabled for they know not what they do. These people were excluded in this post, all I was doing is including them, in actuality they need more of our love and acknowledgment, not less and certainly not excluded because of conditions of positive or negative energy.

The conditions of love are of so called positive energy, everything else is often excluded as of this post sadly enough. Yes, the post is a nice gesture but the gestures are of insurmountable conditions.

If you are going to make reference to God, you must also be making reference to unconditional love, this often doesn't occur.

If the conditions are of having to love oneself to understand love, you have conditions, this is obviously not of unconditional love Kim. What if there is no reason to love oneself, no need of it!! The question of loving oneself or not in relation to unconditional love has no relevance; it simply does not come into question, as soon as it does, you create conditions.

What I am trying to say here isn't easy to comprehend; if it's incomprehensible, it's certainly not going to be understood.

Love yes, but without the insurmountable conditions that new age spirituality put upon love.    

_______________________________

The discussion didn't end up well; I ended up being referred to as just he and this is from so-called very loving people. Use people's names when in discussion, it's a simple sign of respect. I ended the discussion with the following. 

"Where has the real love gone? To people like me, it's disheartening, I suppose it's the way of the wind......"

Express Being Truly Unlimited

Written by Mathew Naismith

All that truly exists is an unlimited state; anything else from this is an illusion. A perception of a state of being limited.....Mathew G

A state of limited potential and perception simply doesn't exist. While one being, one entity or one energy source is expressing motion, especially to extremes, a state of limitations simply doesn't and can't exist. Even if I was to limit my personal self, consciousness, to certain states void of the ego, motion period, I am still not in a limited state while any other kind of motion is being expressed in and through anything else. Yes, extremes motion also has it's place within an unlimited state, anything else would be limiting.

Consider this, energy itself is unlimited within it's expressions, within it's motion, this means it's also unlimited to what form it takes. Energy itself is infinite in nature, it's not finite. You can't destroy energy, as science has proven, yes, you can transform the form energy takes but you can't destroy the energy that creates form and existence as a whole. I look at it this way, energy is the spirit within all things, it's the life force of all things, of all motion, without this spirit, without energy, all things become limited. Of course this is impossible as there is no such thing as a limited state.

However, we can indeed enter into states of consciousness or non-consciousness where there is a perception of a state of limitations. Within this state, motion seems to not exist therefore energy; it's a state where the spirit within all things simply doesn't exist. Yes, this state also exists because this is how unlimited we are as a whole, there are simply no boundaries, no limitations even within a limited state.

So often I get people stating they are not expressive of the ego or judgment, while at the same time egotism and judgment is expressed to an extreme through certain kinds of other energy sources. If motion is being expressed in any sense from any kind of source, we are ourselves of that motional expression, everything is. Actually, a state void of ego and motion period is as limited as a state can be, also, being expressive of motion to any extreme is limiting. A good example of this is materialism, wealth and power overriding all other motions especially by force and control. Once a motion, an energy source, loses balance between one in favour of the other, a reality of limited potential exists, this of course in turn creates a reality of limitations. Sounds awfully familiar!!

Any energy or non-energy source that is limited in nature will of course be destructive in nature; this includes the so-called ultimate state where there is no ego or motion period. This state is obvious within it's destructiveness to motion period because motion period is unable to exist in this state. We might not think this motionless state isn't destructive when within this state motion is simply non-existent. How many people are trying to say we are only truly of this motionless ultimate state, while within a state of extreme motions? This state is simply destructive in nature to motion even within states of motion by refuting that we are unlimited to all potential, to motion and motionlessness, not just to one potentiality of motionlessness.

This is why I personally love the perception of God, as opposed to a God of man which is limiting and not infinite in nature. The perception of God represents everything without bias or prejudice, within this, there is simply no exclusions based on a particle perception or ideology/philosophy stating we are limited to a certain states of existence. There are simply no limitations to existence or our truer being; it simply doesn't exist as no state of limitations do. Yes, states of limited potential do exist but not really, not when we consider the whole of things, of course to realise this, one must go way outside our own present reality based on it's own limitations. As a whole, states of limitations need to also exist for there to be truly no limitations.

So what does all this mean?

Extremes of any kind are destructive in nature, either it be of motion being destructive to motionless or visa-versa, it's just simply destructive because it's a state that is limited and imbalanced with the rest of what it is. This is why people like me often mention about moderation and balance within all things without any exclusion through bias or prejudice.

Yes, expressing the ego in moderation, expressing motion period in moderation, is actually more spiritual that not tying to be expressive of motion period. The reason for this simply lies within it's own limitlessness, also, at no time is anyone just of one state and not of others, this is an impossibility because these limitations simply don't exist overall but they do exist within their own limitations. This is a true state on unlimited potentiality.

Limited perceptions simply denote an imbalance while unlimited perceptions denote balance. One is naturally destructive to all else, the other constructive to all else, it is what it is by nature.....Mathew G   

Consciousness and Awareness

Written by Mathew Naismith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So can consciousness exist without awareness?

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

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

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

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

I Simply Just Don't Get It!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

If you are not into conflict resolution or learning through and from conflicts, it is unlikely you will like this post.

This post once again pertains to a forum I am presently involved with. In respect, I have only inserted my responses to other people that pertain to a particular post of mine that at this point has over 407 views. It's not big number of views but it does show that a number of people are interested in the topics mentioned in this post.  I replaced names with four ex.'s (XXXX).

___________________________

I am so ignorant sometimes.

I presumed that everyone into spirituality would comprehend and understand how a consciousness void of black and white mentality would perceive everything. There is only one so how would one offend or be offensive? To be offended or offensive takes one to be good (positive) and the other bad (negative). My ego isn't offended by XXXX motions/reactions here but it is annoyed and worried at her persistence to push her own black and white mentality upon me. 

A black and white mentality separates everything from negative to positive, high to low and so on; a consciousness void of a black and white mentality simply doesn't perceive like this, all that is observed is motion of one kind or another.  I don't have a bias or a desire of something higher or lower, the strange thing is I think I never truly did. 

I ignorantly thought everyone would comprehend and understand how this kind of consciousness worked but they don't, I owe everyone, especially XXXX and XXXX, a huge apology.

You ever get the feeling you know something and then something like this occurs and you find you don't?  I am simply flabbergasted at my own ignorance, my humblest apologies, I simply had no idea. Get this though, my wife understands how this kind of consciousness works, I just presumed so would many other spiritually aware people, ignorance certainly isn't bliss.

I'm in a different world and I suppose I always have been, I was ignorant to this as well, my humblest apologies everyone.  And please don't get the idea that my world is higher or lower in stature, it's simply just a different world. Just be aware that the ego often perceives otherwise as it would seem, there is simply no known narcissism expressed here by me.

_______________________

What is inside for one isn't inside for another, the perception there is some absolute truth that everyone is of the same inner being isn't true in my mind. How many different perceptions of the inner self are out there to start with?

Now, which one is right over and above the others? We simply and obviously don't have the same inner perspectives XXXX. Why do you seem to be projecting an absolute here, that all inner perceptions are the same?

Why then push inner perceptions as being the only true one onto others who know different? Lets be truthful here, going onto someone else's post and forcefully projecting your own absolutes of the inner self so much is projecting an absolute.

Some people go in and the only thing they see is light and love when there is so much more, it's literally infinite. To a lot of people who go no further than love and light, these people often perceive only light and love is projected through the inner being, this is simply not the case.  Is the inner being limited to light and love? You would think so, going by my own experiences though, it's literally unlimited, it's infinite in nature.

To me you are limiting the inner being to certain perceptions and perspectives, not everyone has the same inner being so why push your own perceptions of your own inner being onto others.

We want to help people realise what, that our own personal perceptions of the inner being, being the same for everyone, in other words limited to certain set projected perceptions!!

This is exactly what I mean about black and white mentality, it's the same for everyone when it's obviously not, not through the experiences I have had anyway.      

So someone like me has not explored inside, your joking aren't you? Just because my inner beings perceptions are not the same as yours!! This is pretty shallow/limited in my mind XXXX. Everyone's exploration is different, this doesn't mean they haven't explored but you obviously think they haven't because it's not the same as yours!! 

It is obvious I am of a different world to you, XXXX and XXXX; this doesn't mean people like me haven't explored the inner being. We all simply don't express the same inner being perceptions XXXX.

In the future I won't project my own views on other people's posts on here, not that this would have helped in this case, however, I do think the reaction I got here did stem from me saying that love is a motion therefore ego on another post.

XXXX, the inner being isn't as limited as you perceive, it's literally infinite in nature but of course you must find this out for yourself to really know this. Are my own inner projected perceptions of the inner being of everyone else's? Absolutely not, this doesn't mean that others haven't gone within does it? 

You often reflect a black and white mentality XXXX, which one of us out of XXXX and I have not gone in, in accordance with your own inner exploration? 

Can the divine consciousness express disdain, meaning, refuse acknowledgment through contempt?

_____________________________

It wouldn't matter how a person like me expressed themselves, a true love and light person could not themselves express disdain in any sense like I described because distain can only be expressed by an ego in control. The ego simply controls people to express contempt.

Sadly, I have not been on one forum where the owner and other members of the forum have even come close to expressing any kind of divine consciousness, in actuality quite the opposite. I am usually critically judged and labelled some kind of ego maniac or worse or I am simply judged as not being of the inner being, of course as they are.

I am myself not a true love and light person I however express way more love and light than people who claim to be of love and light or of exploring their inner being when it's presumed I haven't. I simply don't have disdain/contempt for anyone; of course the ego is going to see this differently for obvious reasons.

If you are showing any kind of contempt for me at all, it is obvious you are nowhere near being of the divine consciousness or love and light.

I find the reactions I get quite interesting but also saddening. I should also say that there are people who are observers of these forums who are truly of love and light, it's just they don't dare speak up or have no need to speak up.

_______________________________

"I do have a problem with megga ego who

build themselves up by putting others down and can't even see they are doing it."

Is not a megga ego in line with an ego maniac? Not once in knowing XXXX have I critically labelled her an ego maniac or narcissist even though it is obvious she quite often puts herself well above other people like me, after all I am something XXXX noticeably has disdain for and wants to change to her kind of world, as mine is disdainful.

How many people into spirituality these days show an obvious disdain for the perception of God and/or religion. There should be less judgment therefore less disdain but there is a lot more judgment therefore a lot more show of disdain.

God to me represents a true state of oneness because it represents all of what is void of desiring to be of one's desires, this includes what we personally perceive how a divine consciousness would be like. When I mention God or religion, certain people showing obvious disdain for God and religion often try to hang me in some way. The perception of God isn't just pure awareness or nothingness or ego, the perception of God represents everything, this gives the ego an idea of a true sense of oneness in my mind.

In regards to religion, religion is as good or bad as the people of the religion are as of any ideology or philosophy, to people like me it's this simple. People will be people.

In regards to love and light, how old is the perception of love and light? Within my own knowing, it goes way back to the antediluvian times, its not just from some old consciousness, it's ancient, so why didn't it work back in the antediluvian period?

To my knowledge it did to a certain degree but also to my knowledge love and light became yet another be and end all, they simply didn't go on from love and light. It's impossible to limit an infinite consciousness but it's not impossible to limit a perception of a consciousness. Once we have a fixed (limited) perception of a consciousness, the consciousness involved becomes finite in nature.

If even an ounce of God's consciousness directly expressed itself today, it would be hung and labelled some kind of ego maniac or more likely something a lot worse if it didn't express itself in line with other people's fixed perceptions. I simply just don't get it......

______________________

If you are willing to learn through forums at the same time being expressive of your own inner being/world, it is likely you will have to learn through conflicts, especially if your own inner being/world is incomprehensible to other people.

I wonder at times if it's worth it, it's probably why I don't become involved with too many forums these days. Forums are not bad places to learn through but they can be daunting as in intimidating, it's really up to the individual if you are willing or able to learn through forums, especially if your world is incomprehensible to a lot of people. If you are already traumatised, it is advisable to stay away from forums that don't project your kind of inner being/world.

If on the other hand you can observe without becoming a participator of these forums, these forums can be quite enlightening. In saying this, after all this time on and off forums, I still simply don't get it, just maybe because I am participating too much instead of simply observing!!