Looking Beyond

Written by Mathew Naismith

I do receive some interesting queries and replies at times that send me off writing again, it's as though some people are able to incite the inner most awareness from other people without much effort.

Sorry for this Mike, you started me off again which isn't unusual for you; you seem to have a knack, an ability for it.  

Enlightenment: Education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge.

(Hinduism and Buddhism) the beatitude that transcends the cycle of reincarnation; characterized by the extinction of desire and suffering and individual consciousness.

Enlightenment to me is of a state of the extinction of desire and suffering and individual consciousness that is reached through awareness. Could a collective consciousness, as opposed to an individual consciousness, become this aware? Looking from a human perspective, I would say no. Looking from a more open and aware consciousness, most probably and likely.

Indeed Mike, 3 dimensional realities consist of both polarities, after all it's these polarities, and at times opposing polarities, that create 3 dimensional realities like this. We do have a choice to be either expressive of opposing or unifying polarities or both. Our present human reality is imbalanced because there are few unifying expressive polarities being expressed; it's either one or the other in opposition to the other to an extreme.

If I was to counteract the negative opposing polarities, people and their expression, with extreme positivity, does this give balance to a reality? There is no balance to be had in separation, only further imbalance; it's basically what a lot of new age spiritually aware people are doing.

Imagine an old fashion scale; one side represents positive and the other negative. Now imagine the positive being further extended on the arm than the negative, how is this balance? It's the same if both polities of a scale were excessively extended, the further away both polarities are away from each other, the harder it is to obtain balance. The last thing we should be doing is distancing (separating) ourselves from the whole, from the pole that holds the arm of the scale. The closer we are to the pole, the easier it is to obtain balance.

You could look at the pole and the base of the scale representing the source of creation (God), the closer we become to this pole (the creative source), the easier it is to obtain balance in any dimension. You can't ascend into another so-called higher dimension without first being accepting, especially if the dimension is of unconditional love. How can you become unconditionally loving without first being unconditionally accepting? This is exactly what a lot of people are trying to do, become unconditionally loving void of being unconditionally accepting period. In actuality, people who are supposed to be more unconditionally loving, void of being unconditionally accepting, have less and less acceptance, not more acceptance.

It would seem on their part we are simply against these people and their ideologies, this couldn't be further from the truth, it is the way they think sadly enough. We are simply trying to help them to become aware that you can't be unconditionally loving without first becoming unconditionally accepting, even and especially while in a 3rd dimensional reality.

Acceptance doesn't mean we have to become what you accept, it simply means accepting what is for what it is. We know not what we do, if we did, we simply couldn't and wouldn't do it; this is the way it is.

Can we ascend (evolve) to a more aware consciousness in turn giving us piece on Earth?  If our consciousness is going to stay 3 dimensional, I would say not. We must evolve on from being of human consciousness, what a lot of people call ascend, to obtain this on a collective scale, a huge ask. It would have to take a huge shift in consciousness, a shift away from being non-unconditionally accepting to start with. As we personally know ourselves Mike, this is not easy under the present circumstances.

Kim Passie also brought foreword some interesting queries within his remarks.   

My Reply

Human perception is that neutrality is between negative and positive, it's the balancing force between negative and positive like old fashion scales. This is true in a sense.

However, neutrality is an entity all of its own, it's not really a part of negative and positive but it can balance out negatives and positives. Negative and positive acting/being as one is simply neutrality, it basically neutralises negatives and positives in a state they are no longer needed in.

Indeed Kim, just because neutrality can exist between positive and negative, doesn't make it of positive and negative, it's a completely different entity. It's like a triangle; neutrality is the pinnacle of the triangle so neutrality is indeed above positive and negative. Neutrality is between negative and positive but more importantly above more than between.

If neutrality was on the same line or level as positive and negative, you could clearly say neutrality is between positive and negative but as you say it's not, not really.

Reply

Wow Mathew <3 This is Onderfully put.... I actually felt this, this morning <3 I realized that neutrality can be seen as the space in which positive and negative happen...

My Reply

Well stated Kim, you seem to have grasped wisdom very well. To comprehend wisdom is one thing, to understand wisdom is another. You can tell who is really aware and who isn't in the queries and remarks they express. The people who have wisely learnt from their environment instead of suffered from their environment. You seem to have stopped suffering from your environment, you have basically neutralised the environment around you it would seem. 

A good example of suffering is excessive positivity in counteraction to suffering. Suffering has created a reaction of excess positivity, in actuality the positivity in this case is primarily based on negative suffering. There is a difference between negative and positive suffering. What is neutrality based on? Neither or both in neutrality to each other, this is why this state is so aware; there are no biases to start with.

Today's westernised spirituality is all about feeling good, usually in counteraction to the suffering, insurmountable biases. How do caring loving parents treat their children? They will suffer for their children so their children may not suffer, they will often give while going without themselves, is this negative? 

Spirituality, wisdom and awareness isn't all about us feeling good, it's about finding a balance in life while suffering yourself to save others from suffering at times, like caring loving parents. Is suffering negative when we learn from it and give so much? Feeling good quite naturally occurs when we become aware of this neutral state; this is without feeling good on the back of suffering. This feel good isn't based on suffering but a state of neutrality as neutrality isn't in counteraction to anything.

Good to hear that you don't just comprehend neutrality but understand it too.

Pure Awareness verses Pure Ego

Written by Mathew Naismith

It's all very simple, strip away the controlling ways of the ego and all you are left with is pure awareness and wisdom, a state known by many as oneness, zero point, God or what ever, it's all of the same state void of the influences of a controlling ego.

For numerous people, the ego calls this state God for a very good reason, how else within an ego controlled reality could the ego comprehend this state of pure awareness and wisdom, a state of complete neutrality, without blowing this state out of all proportion?

The ego justifiably and wisely keeps a connection to this state by doing what the ego does best, inflates everything so it is able to comprehend this state of neutrality, the problem with the ego is when it becomes in total control. When this occurs, any connection or awareness to this neutral state becomes obscured or even unknown. This is atheism at its best but it's not Buddhist atheism, to my knowledge anyway.

Buddhist atheism; simply means there is no inflation or pretentiousness in regards to this neutral state, there is no higher or lower state either even of consciousness, there is simply ego and non-ego, aware and not aware. On the other hand, main stream atheism simply refutes anything not of science and/or of the five senses. Giving that science and the five senses are of pure ego, it's understandable why there are fundamental differences between Buddhist atheism and main stream atheism.

I should be honest here, I do not follow or am I well studied in Buddhism, Taoism or any other ism or ideology; all my awareness comes to me through my own experiences. I should also say that not all experiences are detected through the five senses with people like me either; many of our experiences are undetectable by the ego. Experiences come through awareness; you are just simply aware void of any ego expressions. How often do we become aware through no reason? This is pure awareness. A controlling ego on the other hand does quite the opposite; we can feel all the experiences we like and still know little and still be as unwise as ever.

In saying this, it is important that our ego detects and becomes aware of some of these experiences, after all, all experiences are of the ego as well. If our ego is wise, the ego will learn from these experiences, if not wise, the ego simply won't learn, even after many centuries of learning and experiencing.

So how does the ego become wise? It's not through experiences and/or knowledge, it's simply being aware of the controlling ways of the ego, after all, the ego is simply an unaware state of consciousness. A true teacher in my mind will teach awareness, not knowledge.

Awareness; is not knowledge. As I have stated before in my posts, the reason for this is that knowledge is of motion where awareness is is of motionlessness. The ego often makes the mistake in deceiving us to believe awareness and knowledge are the same when their simply not. All motion is of the ego, this pure awareness in this state of neutrality is simply not of motion.

Now, the reason why this state of pure awareness is also known as nothingness, is to do with there being no motion and a state of total neutrality, this means yin and yang, negative and positive, bad and good, love and hate, etc, or neutralised, they become as one and not separated.

Yin and yang are depicted as separate entities, when in their separate states, they are of the ego, however, when as one, they become this pure awareness, and yes, they are of one, this pure awareness, as they are also of two, pure ego.

The ego has always existed, this of course means yin and yang has also always existed. Only the ego (motion) can create an ego, therefore the ego (yin and yang) has always existed. Also, this state of pure awareness couldn't create the ego for it is not of motion. Another thing to consider, all starting and ending points are creations of the ego, of time and space, it's the ego that creates everything as of the universe itself, it's all created by the ego. Everything has always existed, of course an ego in control simply can't comprehend this and understandably so, there has to be a starting point for the ego. 

However in saying all this, it is wise not to separate pure awareness from pure ego for this within itself is of the ego as of all separations are. As this state of pure awareness is of awareness, so is a state of pure ego no matter how limited the awareness might be in this state, it's still a form of awareness, at times usually of a state void of wisdom when the ego is in total control.                                 

It's wise to be aware that, negatives and positives, love and hate, bad and good, dark and light, yin and yang, are all of the ego, the more we separate everything, the more unaware we will become and of course the more destructive we will be......How obviously destructive is the light to the dark? Light should represents awareness but it simply doesn't in a world controlled by the ego, the light (awareness) simply shouldn't to be destructive to anything but it presently is being expressed in this way.

Pure ego is simply destructive to everything, even eventually of itself, this is it's nemesis and it's nature. Pure awareness on the other hand is constructive to everything because everything is of awareness to one degree or another.    

It is also wise to stay away from the perceptions of higher and lower states or of an ultimate state of being, for all this depicts is pure ego as there is again a depiction of separation within these kinds of perceptions. At no point is this state of pure awareness and neutrality depicted, by the people who are truly aware of this state, as being an ultimate higher state of existence, it's just simply neutral, and yes to the ego, pure bliss and understandably so. 

   The ego can gain that much control, that judging

what is an expression of ego and what is

an expression of awareness is clouded.

Often the ego will judge an expression of

awareness as of what it is of itself, ego!!

~Mathew G~