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.

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.......        

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.      

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.                 

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 Bliss of Neutral Being

Written by Mathew Naismith

What would happen if we got off the treadmill of motion, expressed less motion, meaning, instead of expressing more motion, therefore emotions, we expressed less motions, therefore less emotions. This seemingly would be terrible to express fewer emotions; we of course presume fewer emotions expressed means that we would become more apathetic, basically, less expressive.

Now consider an apathetic state void of motion, this of course reminds me of numerous eastern teachings of being within your own stillness, a state of true motionlessness, it is a state of what feels like bliss to us. When we become apathetic in motion, we become less caring and loving. It is wise not to confuse this state of motion with a state of motionlessness. Becoming apathetic in a motionless state is exceptionally different to becoming apathetic in a state of motion. The reason lies in that all motion is ego based, a controlling ego can only influence and control motion, it is unable to influence and control a motionless state of being for obvious reasons.  

___________________________

I seem to be coming across more and more people who have been on the receiving end of extreme motions these days; so-called lightworkers/positive people often treat them harshly. It is wise to understand where these people are coming from and what is controlling them to treat people so. I find it strange how when anyone tries to bring in a balanced view, you often become victimised.

The following was posted by me to help other people understand that extreme motions only beget extreme motions in the end.         

­­­­­­­­___________________________

Will excessive expressions of love heal the world and make for a more constructive reality?

Considering that love brings on huge amounts of emotions, love is obviously of motion, at times extreme motions. It is wise to consider that all motions are ego based and all extreme motions are ego controlled. 

Is it wise to try to overwhelm one extreme motion with another extreme motion?

You have to consider here which human trait is trying to overwhelm another human trait; of course the answer to this is a controlling ego. One motion trying to overwhelm another motion to gain control over all other motions depicts an ego in control, this is not just a simple display of ego.

Love is a huge healer, yes, however to use love to heal, is an acknowledgment that there is something to heal in the first place, of course the more extreme our motion of love is, the more acknowledgment we give to what has to be healed. Only in a reality controlled by the ego is there anything to be healed.

What would happen if we, instead of expressing even more motion, expressed less motion? The effect of expressing less motion is actually a lot more counteractive towards extreme or excessive destructive motions. The reason for this lays in that the less motion we express, the more neutral we become which in turn neutralises motion.

In the short term, love is a healer and euphoric, in the long term, neutralising all motion gives us nothing to heal thus nothing to be euphoric about. Feeling euphoric tells us there is something to be healed; of course a controlling ego loves this feeling of euphoria because there is something to be healed when there does not have to be.

Not many peoepl will understand what I am saying here, even though eastern teachings teach us to sit within a motionless state!! If you are being overwhelmed and exhumed by motion in a supposed motionless state, you are not really in a motionless state; however, I find it fitting to be in a balance between motions and motionless states of existence myself, however, this balance is often misunderstood by other people expressing excessive motions.  

___________________________

I received the following reply on this topic. I should point out that the following reply was one of the nicer impartial replies I have received on this topic.   

The more I meditate, the more I have moments of a pure bliss wash over me at random parts of my day for various periods of time. I believe it is the ego stepping aside and allowing me to experience what I am meant to feel when I am not allowing the ego to take centre stage. I love this. I welcome this. I wish this for every living being to experience this feeling of pure joy. Would you agree that this is a wonderful thing that does not add to the negative? And are you basically saying that when we label or think we stand in the way of being instead? I'm not sure if I am explaining myself clearly, so hopefully you are following me.

My Reply

Indeed, this pure bliss creates an overwhelming feeling of love, in my mind; this is exceptionally natural for this state of bliss to create. We will also feel very positive, this too is overwhelming.

As many eastern teaching teach us to do, sit within the quietness of self. It is this motionless state that creates this bliss, which in turn creates a feeling of love and positiveness.

These emotional feeling are a creation from a state of bliss, everything that is created from this state is in motion. Any motion is perceptible to the ego as all motion is ego as all motionlessness is egoless.

The ego states, I am all this positiveness and love and runs with this while forgetting what created this positiveness and love in the first place. How many people, especially lightworkers/positive people, believe that love and light is the be and end all? It is actually this motionless, natural bliss, that is of neither light nor dark, negative nor positive that is, in a sense, the be and end all.

When lightworkers/positive people bag anyone who is of this balance, this bliss, they have obviously allowed this love and light to become controlled by the ego.

When you get into this blissful state, void of motion altogether, which means there is no positive or negative, love or hate, just pure being void of one or the other, you know you have discovered your truer being.

I thank you Diane for you are pleasantly illustrated impartial reply here, this does not occur too often.

___________________________

What I do myself is stay in balance between motion and motionlessness, this is of course the same as being in balance between finite and infinite consciousness. I at no time prefer one state of existence to another state of existence, as I do not refer to my infinite being, being my truer self to my finite being; I simply try to free myself from this separation.