Spinning Doll

 

Written by Mathew Naismith

I am very much involved in the human drama, at the same time being in this space where motion (vibrations) has slowed down to a significant extent. Most of us are currently focused on the present drama that is in full motion. Think of it like a spinning doll going at full revolution, now think of the doll or specifically yourself slowing the revolution down further and further. Focus at times on the spinning doll or yourself, while steadily slowing down the revolution of the doll or yourself further and further.

A complete motionless state represents zero point or God consciousness or whatever, this means the faster we are spinning, the further away from this zero point of oneness, awareness and wisdom we become physically, mentally and consciously. Why are we presently experiencing a cancel culture and the censoring out of the truth in favour of lies and deception?

It is not hard to enter into this motionless state, but it is hard for human consciousness to give up on a conscious state we have become conditioned to, a state where the doll is virtually going to spin out of control.

It is this state when spinning out of virtual control that people will go whoops, but it is also of a state when this slow revolutionary state is closest at hand and becomes more agreeable. I have never seen this state of far slower revolutions seem so immense while in direct connection to human consciousness. This is very much in line with, instead of looking at people's actions to tell the true story, look at their inactions, true.

Spiritual Awareness

 

Written by Mathew Naismith

Yes, once again I have woken out of a healthy sleep, around 2:30 AM, and I have a great need to write on the subject of what is presently going on in the world.

Presently there is so much going on, the human collective consciousness is expressing huge amounts of motion, most often in the absence of self-observation. Some of my own dreams have been long and exceptionally vivid as has my insights and visions. No, what is presently occurring seems not good but as my dreams, insights and visions have expressed, what seems presently bad can create an opposite effect in a huge way. It comes down to cause and effect, where a cause has created an effect not perceived or considered by participators.

It is wise to be aware that being spiritually aware is not about expressing less motion and only being of observation, being spirituality aware is the ability to observe your own participation. If you are of 3^rd dimensional physical existence, you are of participation even if you are not aware of this or in observation of this. Yes, expressing less motion is important but what is more important is observing your own participation. Spiritual awareness is of a balance between observation and participation, not of the complete lack of observing your participation while in obvious motion. Yes, learning or becoming aware of motionlessness is important to learn to become an observer, but this is not what makes one spiritually aware, observing your own participation is.

Is motion or violence negative, bad or wrong? The observer or participator actually states the same thing, where the observer of the participator states quite the opposite in certain circumstances. The sun is one of the most violent entities in our solar system, especially when in full motion, is the sun negative, bad and wrong? No, so why is our own motions of violence often judged to be the case no matter what? We even judge our own participation in a negative way in relation to being spiritually aware!! If we start learning from our own violence instead of suffering from from this violence, the human collective consciousness will never again go down the path we are presently observing and experiencing. Some time ago I had a vision that we will never go down this path again, once we learn from our own motions, today, well known people are saying the same thing.

The observer is incapable of motion, this means while in participation, but not aware or accepting of your own participation, you could not eat, drink or participate in your own motion of keeping yourself healthy. Being fit is learning to become an observer but being healthy is learning to honesty observe your own participation. As what has recently personally occurred around me, a person physically fit saw themselves, as other people did, as being healthy. As soon as they were diagnosed with terminal cancer and given a certain time to live, they psychologically fell apart and died far sooner than they should have. Yes, a healthy person will live longer to what is predicted, but a person only physically fit will not!!

What I am saying is our observer self represents out fitness and our participating self represents our over all health, but only if we are honest in observation of our participation. Yes, by all means focus on observing but not in the absence of participating in what we are observing. In other words allow yourself to participate in what you are observing in the absence of judging your own participation as being negative, bad or wrong in relation to being spirituality aware. Yes, learn to become less of motion, but not in the absence of motion. Become fit while at the same time staying healthy while in obvious motion/participation.

As of always, balance is the key as moderation in what we do is and no, moderation is not of one replacing the other, as the observer replacing the participator and motionlessness replacing motion, it is all of one entity no matter what we desire, really!!

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!!

Motions of Life

 

Written by Mathew Naismith

So why are people like me of motion, so involved in participation?

Spiritually aware people are not just suppose to be of motionlessness. Change comes about in a reality of motion through motion, while in the absence as much as possible of pushing and pulling.

A good example of pushing and pulling is war/conflict, or coaxing people of humanity to just do nothing in a reality of motion while people of inhumanity do as they desire. You push away what is not desired, motion, to pull in what is desired, motionlessness!! Yes, so many people of spiritual humanity have been coerced to do nothing because that is what spiritually aware people are suppose to do it would seem!!

Spiritually aware people are suppose to be a apart of all of what is while in the absence of a desired portion of what is. Instead, we desire to be only of motionlessness (pulling) while pushing away what is of motion. In truth, motionlessness and motion are of the same energy portrayed in a different way.

Humanity even governed by spirituality is suppose to stay it's ground, not to give way to inhumanity but simply be motionless in giving totally away to the inhumanity of presents. Yes, bend with the wind of inhumanity but don't give totally away to inhumanity. Also, being totally rigid, motionless, is going right along with this pushing a pulling as well.

My advice is, especially at present, stay right away from this pushing and pulling as much as possible while standing your ground, rooted in one's convictions, while at the same time staying flexible in one's motions to the present storm.

Consciousness of an Enlightened One

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.   

https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2536852 

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 Australia, 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.  

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. 

Living Consciousness

Written by Mathew Naismith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________

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

Quelling Our Reactions, Our Motions.

Written by Mathew Naismith

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carolyn's Reply

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

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carolyn's Reply

Thank you Mathew! You are always inspiring!

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

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

Reply

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

Unconditional Love Unveiled

Written by Mathew Naismith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

States of motion = conditions + love + expressions + separation

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

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

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

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

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

Outside the 3rd Dimensional Mind

Written by Mathew Naismith

G'day everyone.

Yes, I am still alive, it's been very quiet for me on all fronts except for my dreams. I seem to dream all night, I am far more active in my dreams by far. A lot of my dreams are of motion void of form, in actuality, there is presently a lot of movement in energy void of form within my dreams.

We often relate motion to form as all form relies on motion to exist. The reason for this perception is due to ourselves being conditioned to only relate motion to form, in actuality I find that there is more motion void of form than there is motion of form in the whole of existence. Form is simply an abstract notion or impression of the expressions of formless energies, in other words form owes it's existence to formless energy flows, not the other way around.

Everything that man creates is created through form or is expressed through form, a 3rd dimensional aspect. To comprehend the existence, we put everything within a 3D aspect, within this, conditioning ourselves to believe that all motion is of some kind of form, even vibrations become form. As soon as we measure or evaluate anything, we have put it into a 3D aspect, this is simply done this way so our 3rd dimensional mind can comprehend the existence of these motions. Of course if it can't be measured or evaluated, it simply can't exist to the 3rd dimensional mind.

For man to create anything, the mind thinks in 3D, so everything that man creates has a 3rd dimensional aspect to it, all motion simply becomes some kind of form. This is quite natural and normal for a 3rd dimensional mind to perceive like this.

It's seems laughable to suggest that the majority of motion has no form, but only to a mind that can only perceive in 3rd dimensional aspects. As soon as our mind goes outside 3D aspects, the existence of form becomes like a grain of sand on a beach. Indeed, 3rd dimensional aspects seem insignificant. The expression of motion through form is indeed this insignificant in the whole scheme of existence, however, like each individual grain of sand on a beach is significant to the existence of a beach, form, 3rd dimensional aspects and perceptions, are also significant to the whole scheme of existence!! 

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.                 

The Flow of Motion

 Written by Mathew Naismith       

I am presently active on a forum and I thought I would share a few replies I gave on the topic of ego and narcissism. I didn't insert other people's replies in this case as I simply didn't want to upset people, I also don't usually insert other people's comments from a forum on my posts. 

  __________________________   

An interesting perspective alejo18qd. 

Ego isn't narcissism but can lead to narcissism if the ego is in control. To me, all ego is motion of what is motionless, ego is basically an expression of what Buddhism calls pure awareness or nothingness, meaning, ego is of this motionlessness state expressed as motion.

Motionlessness = egoless

Motion = ego

Narcissism = ego in control. 

Ego is balance because it's neither of what is desired or undesired, only when the ego is in control is the ego of desire to be more than it is or more than what everything else is, for an example, to be more than what a judged old consciousness is, is the ego in control. To desire to be neither is ego and to just be all of what is void of desire is egoless, of motionlessness. 

Pure awareness just doesn't mean being aware of everything, it means being of everything void of bias or desire. Being of everything negates motion therefore ego because once everything is as one, there is no motion because there is no separation, only oneness/motionlessness. Only in separation as in yin and yang is everything of ego, this is until yin and yang become one with each other. 

Yin and yang working together is ego. Yin and yang not working together is egotism/narcissism and yin and yang working as one is egoless/motionless/oneness.

__________________________

Indeed, the so-called old-consciousness is ego but the new consciousness isn't suppose to be but by having and showing disdain for the old consciousness, one is still being exactly what they have disdain for, not just the ego but the ego in control. 

The ego to me simply represents limitations, the more of the ego we become, the more limited we become consciously, of course the more limited we become, the more destructive (hurtful) we become. I think our present reality shows this quite clearly, look upon what we are doing to the Earth and each other. 

So has our controlling ways got something to do with our limitations? I think so for only the ego desires to change everything to it's own desires thus limiting itself only to it's desires. 

To me, the soul is of the ego but I suppose one must experience this first hand to acknowledge this.

__________________________

A good epitome and query to make Tawmeeleus, if it's all an illusion, does it really matter what the ego does?

Speaking from my own perspective I think it does, however, I do realise from other people's/souls perspective it doesn't. I suppose this is why we have different perspectives and perceptions, each person/soul is simply different within it's own motion.

Is the illusion real or not?

Within the very present it's occurring so it's real, it's really not a real illusion that it's fake, it's only an illusion because the ego creates it that way that we are only of the illusion of time/ego, of course people like you and I know different.

Is time measured in day and night an illusion? Day and night obviously exist on planets but not in outer space but this is but one measurement of time. Distance, volume and cycles are also of time for which the universe is governed by.

In my mind is everything of time/ego an illusion as in fake, not real? No, but time/ego can delude us to think this is all we are, this is the illusion.

So does it matter? To people like me, yes. I simply don't have disdain for the ego for the ego is always apart of us as in motion and has always been a part of us. Motion, time and ego have always existed because there is no starting point of time within timelessness for time to start existing, how can time start to exist within nothingness even as an illusion?

I simply look at time/ego as motion that has always existed and has always been apart of us so yes it matters. 

Beyond The Seeker

Written by Mathew Naismith

This post is certainly not going to be for everyone. Any comprehension beyond the seeker or questioner or human consciousness, is going to be virtually impossible for anyone fixated to one or two processes to becoming further aware. Being aware that the seeker and the euphoric feelings of love are of the starting point of awareness beyond human consciousness, any fixation to these processes will limit a consciousness to human consciousness. When being expressive of a seeker, it is wise to be aware of this, this is unless you are happy being just aware of the seeker.

It’s probably wise at this stage to be aware that the seeker is of motion and that the non-seeker is of motionlessness. Seeker = motion. Non-seeker = motionless.

Human consciousness is basically of the seeker and of a consciousness that often becomes fixated to euphoria’s; it’s these limitations that make human consciousness human. I should point out, at no time try to change this consciousness, in actuality, it’s impossible to change any limited consciousness, of course you only realise this when you observe human consciousness from a more aware conscious perspective.

Human consciousness is part of a process that is needed when of a less aware consciousness to become more aware, for example, ominous or destructive expressions of consciousness are obvious within their lack of awareness, for only in ignorance can a consciousness destroy. Simply look at human consciousness as being one part of an awareness process or a stepping stone.

I stated perspective instead of levels because there are no true levels, only can perceptions of levels exist when perceiving from an unaware state.  An aware state is never seen or perceived as a higher level than an unaware state while of a more aware state, this is because levels relate or depict an unaware consciousness. Also, perceptions of levels relate to limitations and of the participator, however, perspectives relate to limitations but as an observer. The reason perspectives are also limited, even as an observer, is due to perspectives being also ego based, basically, to seek is ego. Perspectives are still of the seeker or measurer even when in observation. 

We might now think that stating that human consciousness is limited, is a limitation within itself. To a non-seeker, human consciousness is but part of the process of becoming more aware, human consciousness isn’t seen to be limited within this state because it’s a part of the process of becoming more aware.  For example, is a wheel of a car limited while not attached to a vehicle?  Yes, the wheel needs to become attached to a vehicle to become less limited.

An unattached consciousness, such as human consciousness, is limited until attached by a process to the whole self. Basically, the wheel is human consciousness and is limited until it’s attached to the whole self, in this case the whole self relates to the vehicle.  Whole self = Vehicle. Human consciousness =Unattached wheels.

The seeker and fixations to euphoria’s is part of the process of becoming more aware, it is wise to see them as wheels to a car, unattached they are limited, attached, they are far less limited.  Human consciousness unattached to its whole self or divine self is limited, this is until it becomes apart of the whole process, very much like wheels of vehicle.

To any unaware consciousness, the seeker is imperative to becoming more aware; however, any fixations to any part of the process will hinder and even negate a consciousness to becoming more aware. In actuality, at times fixations can cause a regression in conscious awareness; this has occurred in human history many times over, the religious Dark Ages are a good example of this.

The non-seeker does not seek, however, part of the process of becoming a non-seeker is to seek; this is why the less aware seeker is never perceived as being of a lower level or value. Each part of the process has its place, even within its own limitations as long as it’s a part of the process and not separated from the process. The seeker doesn’t, or more precisely can’t, comprehend that human consciousness is part of the process where’s the non-seeker can.  Of course from our whole self, we can experience any process, there are no limitations within a non-seeker; this simply means that at no time is a non-seeker limited to just being aware!!

A truly unlimited consciousness means having the ability to become aware or unaware, void of any limitations and the perceptions of one consciousness being of a higher level than another consciousness. 

To a lot of people, what I have written here will seem confusing and/or probably of non-sequential rhetoric, if this is so, it’s not meant for you at this point of the process. If you can imagine being of motion (seeker) and motionless (non-seeker), you are on your way of going beyond the seeker, it’s this simple.

Try to comprehend that you are not just of motion or motionlessness. If any part of the oneness is in motion, you are in motion. If any part of oneness is in motionlessness, you are motionless. At no time is this oneness, which represents everything, ever not of motion or motionless, seeker or non-seeker. At all times you are simultaneously the seeker and the non-seeker, this means at any time you can stop being the seeker by just focusing on the non-seeker, to do this however takes some comprehension of what I have written here.   

The Feebleness of Love and Light

Written by Mathew Naismith

As I have shown is previous posts, I'm all for love and light, what I am not for is love and light being used and abused in the same way as we have religion/spirituality as a whole. Perceiving and using anything as a be and end all to start with, is usually a prelude to abuse to a significant magnitude. For starters, we have an extreme within these expression of a be and end all. As many eastern teachings teach us to become less of motion (quietened), we instead us more motion within this excessive action of yet another be and end all. 

I find it awfully strange that views and expressions like mine, that are balanced unbiased, are often judged as being negative and even toxic by people of love and light. When did balanced views and expressions become toxic or negative?  Probably at the same time that extremist expressions became normal and an acceptable way of expressing ourselves. Seen as wisdom is anything but of extremist views and expressions, it is obvious that wisdom has been replaced by these kinds of excessive actions. You take away wisdom; you take away even the slightest comprehension of balance. Of course within this state void of wisdom, balanced views and expressions are going to be judged as negative and toxic, primarily from people who are abusing this perception of love and light.

The question is now, why isn't this love and light winning out over it's opposite, for example, ominous expressions and motions? To express an unbiased view, the world isn't becoming less ominous in nature but more. As of usual, this kind of reflection judged as negative and toxic, what I don't get is that spiritually aware people are supposed to be judging less, not more. When I look upon spirituality as a whole over mans entire existence, I find our present state of spiritual expressions just as radical as any other time in human history, this includes the religious Dark Ages. When balanced unbiased views and expressions become toxic, just like in the religious Dark Ages, it is obvious where spirituality is at, at present.

What I also find strange is this love and light is suppose to be of unconditional love, this couldn't be further from the truth, not when balanced unbiased views and expressions become toxic. As of unconditional love, it is too obvious that many people trying to express love and light have no idea what a true sense of love and light denotes.

Let's unbiasedly look at love and light overcoming ominous or destructive motions. How many people in human history have been killed or burnt alive, even within their own temples and churches like Buddhist monks for example, were of this love and light?  If this love and light was that powerful, why did this occur in the first place? Why hasn't love and light overcome it's opposing opposite in human history? Of course this unbiased view is but another toxic expression, a strange expression of love and light I must say!!

Let's look at the antediluvian period where we have opposing realms like Lemuria and Atlantis. Why was Lemuria, which was of love and light, overcome by Atlantis's materialism and power? Considering that Lemuria was of a much greater size realm than Atlantis, how did this love and light succumb to materialism and power?  

Ironical, I just received the following from a friend of mine.

http://www.riseearth.com/2017/03/naval-officer-tells-us-exactly-what-he.html

A true sense of love and light is indeed expressional of unconditional love; this includes expressing this to ominous destructive forces. It is obvious that these forces will always overcome a true sense of love and light, but only in realities of motion. Actually, a true sense of love and light doesn't belong in realities and dimensions of motion, however, a balanced perspective of love and light within these kinds of realities do. When you get abused for expressing balance, especially from so called light workers, this within itself is ominous. In actuality, anything not of balance is going to be ominous/destructive by nature, please expect this to be true.

We are simply not using and utilising light and love in the correct manner in accordance with realities of motion. To me, we are simply being too excessive within our expressions of love and light in realities of motion. If we expressed this kind of love and light in a motionless reality, all would be fine but we are clearly not in a motionless reality.

Consider this. No true expression of love and light would desire to change realities based of motion, the unconditional love of love and light stops this from occurring. Unconditional love also means to unconditionally love realities based on excessive motions, no matter how destructive they are. Love and light expressed to excess does not belong within these kinds of realities, these kinds of realities are not of love and lights reality to change, it's this simple. 

The way we continually use love and light is feeble within realities of motion and always will be. In all, our freedom will only come from balanced perspectives and expressions within realities of motion.   

Divine Mind, Ego Mind

Written by Mathew Naismith

In recent times, it has been stated by other people that we do not all think alike, so stating we and us a lot in my posts, relate to how we think alike when it's obvious we don't. Well, this is not actually quite true, yes, our ego minds do not think alike to other ego minds but the divine mind does. Actually, a lot of ego minds do think alike to some extent, it is that other ego minds can think completely different; for example, the difference in the thinking process between western and eastern thinking can be enormous, I've experienced this first hand many times over myself.

When the ego mind is conditioned to a certain culture, that conditioning reflects on how the ego mind thinks, this of course can be in total contradiction to another mind conditioned to a completely different culture. I think this gives us a good idea of what an ego mind indicates; a mind that is set to certain conditions according to the environment the mind exists in. To go further with this, the ego mind is of motion; this reflection of course refers to the divine mind as being motionless.         

Each motion defines in how the ego mind thinks, for example, if a mind is only conditioned to a certain culture, that mind will only be able to perceive in accordance to that culture. However, the divine mind has no set culture that defines in how the divine mind thinks, yes, each culture has a perception of what is and isn't divine but this perception is ego based. When primarily of the divine mind void of cultural differences and influence of the ego mind, all that is of the divine mind is perceived as being the same. Many of us often call this mind state a state of oneness. It is a state of mind that observes the similarities of everything instead of the dissimilarities, only an ego mind is aware of the dissimilarities. Of course this is to be expected as the ego mind is about separation, not oneness,

You could put two ego minds in the exact same environment and they would most likely think differently, even though it might be ever so slightly. This is due to the ego mind naturally perceiving that all is separate to another. Knowing that all motion is of the ego, being that all egos are of motion, it figures that all motion is going to be perceived as different to other motions. For example, one motion of going up, is going to be seen different to another motion that is going down. Even if all motions are going up, the ego mind will observe that each motion is going up at a different rate of climb. The divine mind does not observe it like this, mainly because the divine mind is not of motion. There is no separation between rates of climb, all the divine mind observes is motion, only the ego mind is able to observe different rates of climb.

If we observe indifferences, this is ego mind. If we observe similarities, this is the divine mind.

Divine mind = similarities (sameness) + egoless + motionless + fearless + true image

Ego mind = dissimilarities (difference) + ego + motion + fearful + abstract image

The divine mind observes motion but the ego mind will try to avoid observing the divine mind, this is because the divine mind is different to the ego mind and is often observed as a threat to the ego mind. The divine mind does not observe the ego mind as a threat, it is only observes the ego mind as a threat to itself, to it's own existence. The last thing the ego mind wants to do is not exist. The ego mind is always in fear where's the divine mind is never in fear.

The divine mind does not observe the differences between itself and the ego mind; all is observed as being of one, this is because only similarities are observed, not dissimilarities. One of the similarities observed by the divine mind is that both divine and ego mind are of a mind or consciousness, there is no true separation. The divine mind also observes motion as a abstract image of it's own divine mind, all is created from the same mind no matter how the abstract image is expressed. Yes, we are all an abstract image of the divine consciousness (mind).             

Let us take closer look at this divine mind. The divine mind is of the divine plan, a plan that has always been in existence, this plan has always been written. Liken this to an architect that draws up house plans for an example. The house plan is motionless once drawn; it's the builder who puts these plans into motion, the architect is the divine mind and the builder is the ego mind. We all represent the builder while in ego mind, however, while in the divine mind, we represent the architect. Of course without the architect, the divine mind, the builder is unable to build.

Divine mind = the architect of creation

Ego mind = the builder of creation

The difference between an architect and the divine mind is that the architect draws up plans while in motion, while of the ego mind, however, the divine mind has no ego mind of motion to draw up plans. You can see why they say it's always been written or there is a divine plan, existence as a whole has always existed but in motionless form. This is why I say the divine mind was not the actual builder of the universe, the ego mind was. Think of a collective ego mind, a collection of ego based minds working together for a common cause, the cause in this case being the building of the universe.

I am not saying the divine mind did not create the universe; I am just saying that the divine mind did not build the universe. No ego-based mind is the true creator; of course it would love to think it is. I honestly think we were of a collective ego consciousness once that built this universe, and many others. While of ego mind, we are the builders but while of the divine mind, we are creators.

This is why I also do not have disdain for the ego mind, it's the builder of the creator, however, like any builder who reads a plan incorrectly or who is incapable of builder from a plan, things often will not go to plan. It is basically not the creators fault for the building not going to plan, the emphasis is on the builders themselves. We might presume that the architect's plans could be wrong and faulty. In an existence build around the ego mind, this is possible. In an existence created around the divine mind, it's an impossibly, I will explain.

Divine mind = pure awareness

Ego mind = partial awareness            

         

In a pure aware state, no plan can be drawn up faulty because of the awareness involved; this of course is different in a state of partial awareness. The funny thing is, the builder sees the architect as being the most important part of the relationship, however, the architect sees that the builder as being the most important part of the relationship. The divine mind and ego mind are an integral part of each other; one without the other or in unison to each other creates nothing. Out of unison to each other, only chaos will be created, very simular to a builder not being able to follow a plan correctly. Are we reading the divine plan that badly or are we just incapable builders?

Please do not take this as gospel or absolute, it is plainly not but it might be a reflection of it.