Truer Sense of Oneness

Written by Mathew Naismith

I had a very interesting interaction with another person in regards to my following post posted on another person's timeline. Progressive thinking like this, or more precisely progressive awareness, is not well accepted, in actuality, in a reality based on desires, progressive awareness is less accepted.

The reason for this unacceptance has to do with our desires or our fixations, for example, that there is only a starting and ending point, meaning, everything hasn't always existed and we come from something to end up where we are now. 

We also don't desire to be apart of something unbecoming, like this reality that we are experiencing at present. It's as if we are discarding the yang in favour of being just of the yin; of course there is no true sense of oneness in this or truth.

Progressive awareness is to do with being aware that everything has always and always will exist, this of course also includes, not excludes, starting and ending points, especially of origin.

Progressive awareness simply has nothing to do with the desire to be one thing or another, but everything no matter how unbecoming it might seem.

Note: This post is rather long, sorry for any inconvenience; I simply could not split this post up in two parts.

_______________________________________

So if I focused on myself and healed myself or became enlightened, I would be healed or enlightened!!

No, for the simple reason we are one. If one part of this collective consciousness is not healed or not enlightened, we too are of the same, of course a controlling ego will not have this in any sense.

I will listen to a truly enlightened person, for only a truly enlightened person knows they are never healed or enlightened if any part of the collective is unhealed or unenlightened.

Where has the true comprehension of oneness gone in the world?

I am often labeled a guru or enlightened; never will this truly be the case because a real guru or enlightened person could never accept this for obvious reasons.

Reply

Heather MacEwen So this must mean that we have to work towards healing or enlightening ourselves - so that in the improbable scenario we all give action to this cause, we are then all healed and enlightened together.

It would be futile to say 'what is the point in even trying to find self healing or enlightenment' because then you could be the one that prevents oneness.

My Rely

Very interesting view, yes of course. The very act of perceiving to be healed or enlightened prevents the collective from being at one, this is probably why human consciousness collectively may never be at one. 

It's infinite, there is always a part of the collective consciousness as a whole that needs to be healed or enlightened. If it was the other way around, we would only exist and experience finiteness. I think having a part of the collective consciousness as a whole that needs to be healed or enlightened, gives us infiniteness. This is as it should be because consciousness should always be infinite in nature; actually I don't think it could be any other way. 

It's strange to think that we can only be at one while being aware that we are never truly enlightened or healed as a whole. I think our own awareness of this gives us a true sense of oneness. 

If we only perceived that we were enlightened, where is the oneness in this when excluding the parts of ourselves that are not enlightened? A true sense of oneness has no exclusions; it's something human consciousness seems to have always done and probably always will; it's just one of the traits that make human consciousness human I suppose. 

Thank god we are not just of human consciousness.

Reply

Heather MacEwen Great reply Matthew. I enjoy reading your posts but I really do have to take time to digest the content and understand it.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.

My Rely

 It's funny, most people would say what I write is complicating things. I thinks it's more complicating things when we separate everything as most people are conditioned to do, for me anyway. I was pleasantly surprised that someone got the gist of this to the point you did. We must think outside the square to find our truer being in my mind, human consciousness is too limited, of separatism and self-centred.

Reply

I think it's easy for others to say that you're complicating things when they don't understand. My opinion is that if you don't understand, then ask and become committed to taking time to try and understand where another person is coming from. Surely this will help us all to become united/one.

So, to look outside the square - should we try and view human collective consciousness as limitless - like Divine consciousness, or are we limited within the Divine consciousness?

My Rely

Very good question, should we try and view human collective consciousness as limitless?

Would we be lying to ourselves if we viewed something that is limited as being unlimited? Considering that our present reality was created from lies, I'm not sure if this is a good thing to do.

I think human consciousness is naturally limited while being apart of an unlimited consciousness at the same time. Oneness to me refers to the yin and the yang, the limited and the unlimited without separation or refutation of one or the other. To me, human consciousness is an important part of the whole even being as unlimited as it is. A controlling ego desires that we are only of the unlimited, in other words of the yang while refuting or denouncing the existence of the yin, there is certainly no wholeness or oneness in this.

Only when conversing with eastern minded people do you realise the extant to which the eastern and western mind thinks. The western mind often excludes one or the other in favour of one or the other, it's a liar/deceiver in other words. 

In India, people were brought up being aware of the controlling ego; we in the west are brought up to do anything but be aware.

I think all we need to simply do is be aware that we are of an unlimited consciousness as well, while at the same time desisting in trying to separate one from the other.  It's funny that a controlling ego always desires to be glorious, the best of everything only.    

Reply

Heather MacEwen Am I thinking along the same lines as you if I suggest that in a way, 'we' limit human consciousness by refusing to accept the whole i.e. Yin/Yang? If this was embraced fully we would become limitless and a heaven on earth?

My Rely

Do we, in the way we use human consciousness, limit human consciousness?

I think human consciousness itself has to refute the existence of the whole to stay as human consciousness. However, as human consciousness has evolved from other conscious forms, we too will evolve from human consciousness; we will simply leave human consciousness behind us in my mind. 

So yes, we are limiting ourselves to human consciousness when we are at the same time of the divine consciousness, a consciousness that isn't limited.

I think heaven on Earth simply has to do with awareness, considering our present reality having been created from ignorance, I think being more aware would bring a heaven on Earth. Being aware of the true nature of oneness would definitely help in this in my mind; we are just too disconnected from our divine nature, too unaware and deliberately so in a number of cases.

Rely

Heather MacEwen Yes, makes sense

Supplement: I will explain the idea of this using the same method as people from India do; use their environment to explain themselves.

My wife and I are debt free, however, this does not mean we are truly debt free because our country isn't debt free. We perceive we are personally debt free; this is clearly only a perception or a desire.

Ok, let's say that the country is debt free, does this mean we are debt free? No, if anyone is in debt and doesn't pay that debt, it's not the financial institutions that lose out; we do with higher charges to cover these debts.

We might be healed but if the Earth is unhealed, are we truly healed? Considering that the Earth affects our health and well being, are we truly healed? To simply put this, our desires lie to us.

    

One Source of Consciousness

Written by Mathew Niasmith

It's funny how a more advanced science today is in line with ancient teachings, that all things are connected as one. It's all of one source no matter what you call it.

http://curiousmindmagazine.com/scientists-find-everything-energy-reality-isnt-think/

Now imagine trying to separate yourself from this source. The act of trying to separate oneself from this source will of course create realities quite different from a consciousness who is close to the source, or in other words, aware of the source. The more aware we are, the closer to the source we are. The less aware we are, the further from the source we are. It's simply this unawares, this perceived separation, that creates chaotic and destructive realities it would seem to me. 

Passive Analogies and Insights

Written by Mathew Naismith

"The pond of life is still and tranquil, this is until the still pond is put into motion by countermanding motions of human differences".......Mathew G

The pond of life: Look upon life as a still pond, it is still, tranquil and clear, this is until the still tranquilness of the pond is disrupted by opposing motions, not necessarily opposing motions to the water but opposition motions on each side of the pond. These opposing motions are likened to, bad and good, negative and positive, light and dark, hate and love and so on. Now imagine that these opposing motions are throwing stones at each other from their side of the pond, as opposing motions naturally do. Of course many of these stones end up in the water as do some of the opposing motions themselves, is the still tranquil pond still clear and calm? 

In the end, the pond ends up not being a pond anymore but a quagmire of embattlement, this is because both opposing forces end up opposing the pond which gave life to all motion to begin with.  It's strange to think, no pond, no motion, even when the pond itself is motionless. It's this motionlessness that gives life and its motion that can take the life of the pond away, but only when motion becomes extreme within its own motion. Opposing motions only see dissimilarities, not also, the way too obvious, similarities.

To people like me, the similarities are obvious, for example, the similarities between dark and light. Both want to control or destroy each other. Both have opposing views. Both know they are more powerful than the other. Both want to become the dominate force. Both are using the same motion but with very slightly dissimilar motives. One's motive is for the collective good of the (I), the other is for the collective good of the collective as a whole. Of course many religions have tried to control the collective by dominating it, this is why love and light should never be used as an opposing force but it clearly is being used in this way.

While existing in a chaotic existence, we perceive that the still tranquil clear pond indicates love and light, thus perceiving love has no opposites; of course what is then the opposite of hate!!

The tranquil still clear pond of life doesn't represent love and light, it represents exactly what it is, still, tranquil and clear; this is all. Because we exist within a chaotic existence, we perceive that the pond is of love and light and quite understandably so. Any kind of tranquilness will feel more loving and of the light while experiencing chaos in any form. The pond doesn't have to be of love and light because it has no opposition, the pond of life isn't in opposition to motion but motion can be in opposition to the pond, to life itself. The pond of life is what it is, motionless except for the life that the pond creates/supports. When the life that the pond creates becomes too expressively of motion, it's quite understandable that this will upset the tranquilness of the pond.

The universe: Now think of how tranquil the pond that the universe exists in was before the universe was created. Yes, I look at what the universe was created in as a pond as well. The universe represents all living form that exists within pond/space itself.

In a pond, a fish is hatched from roe which was conceived through the integration of yin and yang, what is the pond to the fish? The pond is everything to the fish which makes the pond more precious than life itself. Now look at the universe as being this fish, how important is the pond/space to the fish/universe to us? We of course perceived that the universe is far more special than the space that the universe was conceived in, this is very much unlike the fish that sees the pond/space far more special for it gave it its life to begin with. I think one day we will find out how special this seemingly nothingness space that the universe was born into. There is far more to this empty space than we perceive in my mind. 

Fish = universe

Pond = Space

Yes, I also see that the universe was conceived, which comes from the idea that matter and antimatter created the universe through integration of these two motions.

Matter = yang + male

Antimatter = yin + female

I should state here that matter could also be perceived as being female and visa-versa for argument sake.

Oneness, God: So where does the idea of God or oneness fit within all of this? Let's look at the human race; it takes two to create another living energy source, what actually integrates these two energy sources to create another energy source?  Try integrating without consciousness; you need to be consciousness of another energy source, and the right energy source, to integrate to start with, this of course takes a singular source of energy, such as consciousness, to begin with.

You can see where the hidden perception of oneness and a God comes from. I say hidden because our ego minds perceive in a structured way in accordance to our five senses. Our structured perceptions perceive God as a man, Christ as man and not as a consciousness. 

Oneness equals God as God equals consciousness that is seemingly behind all of creation, very simular to humans and the creation of the universe which again took the integration of yin and yang, two different but also indifferent energy sources that were conceived from a consciousness in my mind.

I should state that the analogies and insights used in this post come wholly from and through me, please at no time take them as being absolutely true........          

A True Sense of Oneness

Written by Mathew Naismith

I had another interesting anecdote presented to me by Sreeram Manoj Kumara seen below; I also inserted my reply to this anecdote.    

"If I advice "be a witness" I am still in duality.

If I say "I am that" even if it implies duality

"I" just has to fade away."

I had to ponder on this. I thought I would give a western perspective on this.

1/ Observer - A state of consciousness that only observes void of participation. This state can be related to, if you like, a consciousness of God's/Goddesses in observation only.

2/ Observer observing one's participation - A state of consciousness that observes it's own participation. This state can be related to a consciousness of wisdom/awareness in observation and participation.

3/ Participator - A state of consciousness that only participates void of observation. This state can be related to a consciousness of ignorance/unawareness in participation only.

In observation only, the "I" does not exist, egoless.

In observation of one's own participation, the "I" fades away as if it never existed, ego.

In participation only, the "I" not only exists but also is everything. In this case, all perceptions are based on the "I", a controlling ego.

___________________________

The following goes into this a lot deeper, if you are not into deep thoughtfulness, it is advisable you stop here, however, the following explains the anecdote of Sreeram's in a more in-depth way.    

We could say that being a witness is being an observer, however, a witness is not usually in relation to observation of oneself, the witness refers to the observation of other people and/or our immediate environment. Observing your own participation isn't being a witness especially in conjunction with "If I advice" as "If I advice" relates to a wrong or right, good or bad. As soon as we become the advice, we become the participator that create wrong and rights.

If I say "I am that", in the west this is often in reference to the ego, however, the observer says I am that, meaning, I am all of that I observe, there is no ego present within this observation as all is observed as one. When I observe myself, only in relation to myself, I observe all of what is but if I observe other peoepl and/or my environment, I am only participating even in observation. In this case, observation actually becomes a witness as opposed to an observer. Remember, witness is in reference to a participator dually, observation refers to the observer non-dually.

When you learn to observe yourself, you observe all of what is. When you observe all else in advice, usually other than yourself, you observe as a witness therefore become the participator.  

So where does science fit within this as science is all about being the observer?

Good science, so to speak, is about being able to observe yourself at one time but at other times witnessing your environment other than yourself. Bad science on the other hand is about only being a witness, a participator, of the environment void of being able to, truthfully, observe oneself. Science fits within both the observer observing one's participation and participator categories as my reply to Sreeram shows; this of course depends on the kind of science applications used.

Science is incapable of being an observer without being a witness to what science observes, this like a true state of spiritual oneness is unable to be a witness while in observation, even when in duality. Once one is able to observe oneself as all of what is, void of separation, even in duality, one is able to observe oneself as if it is of everything, not a separate entirety to everything. What makes science what it is, is its inability to be just an observer void of being also a witness at the same time. It's like what makes human consciousness human. What makes human consciousness human is it's limitations, science is the same within it's own limitations of being unable to just observe void of participation/witnessing.

At no time is our own participation not being observed, in actuality, it is this observation that creates what we participate in. Basically, everything we experience is being created through observation. You could say that your higher self is observing your own or it's own participation, in doing so, creates what is being experienced.

This is difficult to accept because we often separate the observer from what the participator experiences. We are conditioned to perceive primarily through the perspectives of time, space and matter, this means we are unable to comprehend that the observer and the participator coexists in the present only. Only the participator will perceive that for there to be a participator, an observation has to be made first to create the experiences a participator experiences. Take away the perception of time, space and matter, what you have left is a perception void of a past and future, this is of course why time travel is possible.

Observation and participation simultaneously occur outside the perceptions of time, space and matter. Once we free ourselves of these perceptions, we begin to realise who we truly are, simultaneously all of what is as a whole and at the same time individualistic in nature. We are not one or the other but all of what is be it duality or non-duality.