What Are We Doing!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

Everything is of the path of the flow of the water. No matter of what the water, everything else from this is simply a journey to be experienced........MG Naismith          

Indeed, what are we doing when we are forcing ourselves to change, forcing our path to be different to what the present reality determines? Are we living in the present while trying to force this change upon our own personal individualistic path? Of course forcing change upon our own path is in hope that this change will engulf the rest of the world, making for a collective path to be what we personally perceive to be right and positive.

Have we the right to force change upon another person's path? No, so what right have we to force change upon the collective path to be more like the path we are trying to force upon our own path?

Our present reality is all about forcing one's own path onto others. As it is of this reality to force one's own path onto others, are we any different to this reality if we do the same, in any sense? Forget about changing your own path to be different to the collective path, for all this is of is the reality we are trying to change, the same mentality using different tactics to force change upon a path.

Spiritually, we are not supposed to be about forcing change upon other people's path. If we are not of this reality that is about separation and individualism, why do so many of us force change upon our own path separate and individualised through our own actions from the collective path? To force change upon our own path, is the same in forcing change on other people and the collective path, for there is only one path of many different journeys.

Yes, it is often said that there are many different separate and individualised paths of the same human journey. This human journey is of course different to and separate to other living entities journeys, within this perception, we have separated the human journey from every other journey taken by other species on Earth and even Earth (Gaia) itself. This separation is simply due to us perceiving that we are taking a different path while on the same journey; this is also while separating our own journey from all other journeys as if they are not of the same path. Our human journey is perceived to be different and separate to all other journeys, even though we are of the same path as the universe!! The human path isn't just of the same path than Earths path; it's the same as the universes path while experiencing a different journey while following the same path as everything else.

Look at this way, is experiencing time and space of the universe a path or a journey? Considering that journeys are of travelling from one place to another, therefore an indication of time and space, and that paths refer to an established line of travel or access that journeys are defined by, is not the journey of the path a line of travel or access? The journey is only an indication of the existence of time and space where the path is of time and space and timelessness therefore spaceless. Where is the universe travelling to? The universe is not travelling from one place to another, however, the universe is on a path from creation (birth) to a conclusion or end (death), and so is everything else of this universe no matter what. The universe is defined by time from its journey from creation to its end, while at the same time on a path of simply existing or being like everything else.    

Even if we go beyond time and space, meaning that any journey experienced is not governed by time and space, the journey is still governed by a path of existence or consciousness. Cannot some people access a state of timelessness? This state of timelessness is often experienced through practices like meditation where time has no meaning, this is a journey, not a path, that can be experienced through accessing certain states of consciousness. Accessing this state is a line of travel for the consciousness to experience a journey governed by timelessness within time. It matter not what path the journey takes, it's still a path taken by a consciousness to experience. It's the journey that determines the path experienced, not the path that determines the journey experienced. Once you enter into a state of timelessness, there is no journey to be taken but a path of being in a state of timelessness. Everything is governed by the same path while on a different journey. The human experience is not a path onto it's own but one of many journeys.

You will notice that a lot of Eastern literature or philosophy refers to many paths in life, where a lot of Western literature or philosophy refers to a lot of journeys in life. I am not sure if the interpretation of Eastern philosophy into Western ideological perceptions is correct in regards to paths and journeys here. All I can do is define that journeys are only of time, being that journeys are only experienced in time and space. A path of travelling and experience is not defined by travelling from one point to another, like from birth to death; the path is simply a line of travel in what ever state or reality experienced. Simply, paths are not defined by travelling from (A) birth to (b) death but a line of travel taken by a journey experienced.

Yes, there are many journeys to be taken therefore experienced but while on the same path. Paths are only separated and divided by the journeys experienced, in other words only while perceiving through the perceptions of time can we have the perception of many paths. Ask yourself, what defines different paths? The journey experienced along that path, it's therefore the journeys experienced that defines a perceived different path, not the path that defines a different journey. It's the journeys experienced that defines a different separated path to other paths. There is really only one path with many journeys to be experienced.

And here we are, trying to force change on our own and each others paths, when all we need to do is influence a change upon our journeys to become aware. To become aware that it's not the many paths we need to force change upon, but to simply become aware of what we are doing when trying to force change upon what we perceive to be many paths. You simply need to be aware that everything is of the same path but on a different journey that are not separate to the path. The path in time and space simply creates separate journeys to be experienced while still of the path. What is a path without an individual journey? Singular, it's simply the journey that gives us a perception of separate individual paths. Simply think the path to be singular instead of plural, meaning, of many individual paths.

Look at it this way, how many people following the same path of, for example, materialism or spirituality experience a different journey even on the same path? It's the journey experienced that makes a path seem different to all other paths. To people like me, realities primarily governed by time therefore separation and division seem upside down. As I wrote some time ago, it's not the questions that formulate (create) the answers, it's the answers that formulate (create) the questions. Here we are looking for the questions to the answers when we should be looking for the appropriate answers to the questions, in actuality, when the answers simply appear by desisting in our separatist ways, the questions to the answers are no longer relevant. Simply influence the way we, not you as a separate entity, experience the journey.      

Genuine Love

Written by Mathew Naismith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kUoTS3Yo4g

This video was presented by a person who I took under my wing to all their friends; I looked after them because they were having trouble assimilating into Australian culture, very much on their own accept for a child. They were trying to assimilate that much that they tried to assimilate into a religion they didn't understand.

Because this person was from Cambodia, I gave them a book on Buddhism. It's OK to assimilate into another culture but you don't have to personally give up the culture you are conditioned to, this also means not giving up an ideology and/or philosophy you are conditioned to. Of course if the ideology and/or philosophy are in conflict with the culture you are trying to assimilate into, often compromises have to be met.

I am so proud of this person presenting such a video on genuine love to all their friends, my guidance has proven itself to be true. So often do we guide people down our own path when they have their own path to follow. Yes, be expressive of your own path, which may or may not be helpful to other people's path, but avoid leading people down your own path.

What does a teacher do, do they guide their students down their own path or guide the students down the students own path? The teacher is simply being expressive of their own path that may or may not be helpful to the students own path. As they say," You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. "You can guide a student to your own waters but you can't make them of your own waters, this is unless the student's path is a part of your waters.

You could imagine how I feel that someone I have guided presented such a compelling video to all their friends. Genuine love isn't of attachments or desire, it's of the release of attachments and desires, Even attachments to ideological concepts that teach/preach love are not of genuine love. Attachments period are not of genuine love but of a desired love.

My own path is not to follow ideological concepts that I attach myself to but to use these ideological concepts simply as a guide, of course other people's path is to become attached to ideological concepts and use them as everyone's path. One is expressive of genuine love the other isn't.

It's not about what the teacher feels but of what the student feels. Genuine love is all about what the student inwardly and outwardly feels; this is the teacher's role. The student within us must also be guided in the same way without losing the teacher's guidance of genuine love.

A Journey to Behold

Written by Mathew Naismith

I feel like a charlatan at present. Having posted over two thousand posts on topics like letting go in one sense or another, I still have an attachment to a journey I have no passion to belong to for I have my own journey to follow. I am not talking about a path as in our own personal paths that we follow through the collective human journey; I am talking about a journey that my path has lead me down to.

        

My family individual paths are following the present human journey, a journey conditioned to one order trying to dominate each path being followed. This means that all paths must follow the present dominating journey or perish, however, my path is leading me down a different journey, a journey where a particular order doesn't dominate all other paths lead.

The Roman Empire, the Napoleon Empire and the world order of Adolph Hitler's fascism, are of world orders; the human collective consciousness has been conditioned over thousands of years to the dominance of an order over all individual paths. All paths are to serve the order or perish, this is apparent today as a one world order once again tries to dominate over all other orders and paths lead.

Confucius died disheartened in China because he was unable to influence his countries journey to a great degree, his countries journey was of course following what China was conditioned to on a collective human scale. I would say Jesus was also disappointed at his attempt to influence the collective human consciousness as well, as of anyone with a true sense of love and compassion would for the collective consciousness.

You could say people like this tried to change the collective conscious journey rather than just simply influence the collective human conscious journey. The influence wasn't done in a way that inferred force, deception, lying and brutality under one order, so it wasn't to change the collective journey but to influence it in a way to be more moderate within its order.

A one world order will denounce or, if applicable, totally ignore anything it's proclaimed as being negative, especially if it's of toxic vibrations. It's of course understandable that a one world order will feel that other orders are of bad toxic vibration, these people will literally feel bad vibrations from other orders it sees as a threat or has disdain for.

Do you see where I am coming from in relation to new age spirituality? It's of the same order it's trying to extricate itself from so it denounces anything not of its order as what? Toxic, bad vibrations and so on it goes. Yes, while being of another journey collectively, we will feel that the present journey is negative and even toxic to our new order, the trick is to not treat a break away human collective journey as being an order. As species have evolved from other species over millions of years, I believe a new consciousness will evolve from the present human consciousness, this can't be obtained if we are still of the old order or of any order to be precise.

Yes, it is possible that western perceptions like love and light are of a different path while following the same human collective journey, in actuality this seems to be the case but I don't think it's meant to be.

The more unconditionally loving we become, the more accepting we become, our acceptance should be more unconditional not less. There is simply more conditions in what we don't and do accept, considering that to truly love one must be accepting, being less accepting isn't truly love, it's a desire. Try loving something you don't accept, within this unacceptance there is a huge amount of conditions. How many conditions are their to a world order? This is why there is no true love within a one world order, only desire. Yes, many of us simply desire a new human journey which will only continue us on the present journey unbeknownst to us.

I accept my family's journey as being their journey and not mine; this is the same on a collective human scale, within this I can truly love what I am parting from. Yes, the present human journey feels simply not of my own, should this really mean it's toxic or even negative like a world order? You will find what you truly love hard to detach or extricate yourself from, as it should be if we are truly becoming a part of a new consciousness.

You should love what you are detaching yourself from, this is simply not occurring. You must love it for what it is, not what you desire it to be in accordance with your own order. The journey to behold is simply not of an order, it's far more accepting than that...... 

Chosen Path

Written by Mathew Naismith

I've experienced some interesting interactions with other people recently. Are people like me critically judgemental or simply expressing what we observe in the absence of a black and white mentality? It's wise to be aware when people lash out at other people, it's good sign their being controlled by the ego. This reaction of course needs a depiction of one thing in reference to something else, for example, the comparing of a negative in reference to a positive. It's what I call a black and white mentality; it has to be one or the other.

When an ego in control lashes out in critical judgment, this has to be done through a black and white mentality, being that the ego in control is always positive and the critically judged is always negative. How often do people like me critically judge like this, it's simply wrong or right, negative or positive, black or white? Now, how many other people judge through a wrong or right, negative or positive, black or white mentality? It is however natural for the ego in control to turn the tables or the emphasis from itself to anything else threatening it's control and existence, people like me are a prime example of this.             

I will now share a recent post I posted on a forum that is in relation to this topic, I also inserted one of my replies I wrote.   

_______________________

I don't get this, maybe someone on here can assist me with this.

People like me are often critically judged as being narcissistic, negative, egotistical, toxic and so on it goes, for simply expressing our own experiences and observations. People like me usually observe through the absence of a black and white mentality, an ego in control obviously finds this most threatening.

People's egos who judge through a black and white mentality, will often define anyone not of their egos liking narcissistic, negative, egotistical, toxic and so on, how else would anyone critically judge other people in this way?

Through the judgment of a black and white mentality, people like me are supposed to be (judged) narcissistic. Just recently I wrote a post stating first up that I know little of this particular subject, I also often state that a lot of what I write is channelled through me and not from me. I have even stated that what is being channelled through me I know very little about.

I'm also suppose to be (judged) egotistical, a strange egotism when I often express myself in a way that a controlling ego finds threatening, in the process making myself exceptionally unpopular. Just because someone expresses their experiences that questions the control the ego has over us, doesn't make the person egotistical but of course it will to an ego in control.

It's like a drug addict addicted to an addiction, the controlling ego will lash out at anything questioning it's existence and it's control. The controlling ego sees people like me as being a huge threat to it's control, of course the ego in control is going to lash out like this, just like a drug addict.

People like me are also supposed to be (judged) as being judgmentally critical. If I was to judge in accordance with a black and white mentality, of course I would be judgmentally critical. Honestly, I would be exactly like the people who judge people like me so critically through their black and white mentality.

Of course an ego in control is going to lash out like this, it's perfectly natural for an ego in control to lash our in fear of it's own control and existence. In actuality, if people's egos didn't lash out at people like me, I simply wouldn't be following my chosen path in life.

__________________________

My Reply

Making reference to old energy patterns refer to the past, you can't have a perception of time without making reference to the ego as time is motion and all motion is ego.

So, if I was to refer to certain patterns as being old, I am in actuality making reference directly and mainly to the ego. 

Old is in reference to new, a black and white mentality, which can only exist in an ego based reality/existence.  This is exactly how the ego tricks us in thinking the new isn't of the ego when it's just as much if not more of the ego.  There is simply no new or old in relation the divine consciousness, why? The divine consciousness is infinite in nature, not finite, this simply means it's not based on time but timelessness. Because there is no time, the perception of old or new can't exist because the perception of old and new needs a starting point of origin to exist  to start with, there is simply no starting point of origin within the divine consciousness.  In actuality, the divine consciousness isn't above human consciousness, only the ego in control perceives this to be the case. One being over and above another is pure ego, nothing else.     

Also, having any kind of disdain for the old consciousness is egotistical; this includes having disdain for anyone who defends this so-called old consciousness.  In my mind, too many people into spirituality today exist in disdain, this is pure ego for only can the ego express disdain. 

Do people like me truly defend this old consciousness?  When you truly live by the divine, what is old and new, black and white? This kind of consciousness in my mind can't possibility exist within the divine consciousness but many people obviously think it  does.  The ego can be exceptionally deceptive, it's wise to be aware of this, but as always, the ego will at all cost refute what I have stated here, or, it is simply unable to acknowledge what I have stated here. 

 Are people like me narcissistic or egotistical for pointing out the obvious? The ego in control will always say yes, however, the ego that isn't in control will say no for obvious reasons.  Please don't be duped by the ego, it's a tricky little devil but only when in control.   

  

I should point out, when people like me make reference to egotistical in relation to myself or others, this observation isn't of disdain like the ego in control  perceives, it's simply pointing out an obvious that motion is naturally limiting, nothing more. People like me simply don't have disdain for egotism for it's not of the divine consciousness to do so. If to the controlling ego defending old consciousness is ego, people like me are happy to be of the ego in the egos mind, for this shows we are not of the ego but of the divine.  Simply, the ego is a trickster, it will always accuse itself of being of itself, within this, the ego will always be in control.

OK, I see now, acknowledging that the divine consciousness isn't of some higher stature than human consciousness is going to be impossible to imagine.

There is no true separation between the divine consciousness and human consciousness, within this understanding, how can divine consciousness be of a higher stature? Only through ego is everything separated and of levels/separations. 

As I understand it, divine consciousness only observes a difference in motion between itself and human consciousness. Human consciousness is merely seen as limited in nature, it's not judged as being of a lower stature to itself. Yes, the ego will see that a more limited consciousness as being of a lower stature, only can the ego judge in levels like this, this is not the case for the divine consciousness.

So if a consciousness is limited, it's of a lower stature!! Only to the ego in control is this the case, so why an ego in control? The perception of levels is all about control, the control and dominance of a lower level, in other words, control and dominance over a consciousness that is limited.

Divine consciousness simply means a limitless consciousness, an infinite consciousness in nature.   

The Human Journey

Written by Mathew Naismith

I wasn't going to write this post but some strange things occurred, it is obvious I was meant to write and share this post.

I wrote something recently in relation to our individual path and the human collective journey and shared it, I then received some interesting replies as shown below. I felt I needed to further elaborate on this but I then changed my mind. As soon as I changed my mind, visions of the spiritual love expressed today and the love expressed in the sixties came to me, I soon realised that the love in the sixties was a lot more unconditional than the love expressed today in spirituality. I will explain myself further using the hundredth monkey theory strangely enough.

Each person has an individual path to follow

But also a collective human journey to follow

The paths are different but the journey is the same

For a collective change to occur

Which is more important

The path of the individual ego

Or the journey of humility?

A collective change is simply not about the individual

~Mathew G~

Reply

It's a team effort creating our communities as well as realities.

My Reply

Indeed +Michael Hopkins. A lot of the collective effort makes up our individual paths, religion/spirituality and materialism are but two examples of this.

I think we make the mistake in focusing on the individual self too much when our own paths are mostly determined or created by the collective team effort. Everything that starts at home as individuals is determined by the collective in some way. Too many people think it's the other way around, I suppose that is the controlling ego for you.

It's interesting why people like me are not popular, it is also very sad. We are simply about the collective journey over and above the individual path, this will always be deplorable to an ego in control, including my own ego.

The feeling of love and the kind of love felt is a personal experience, no one person feels love exactly the same but of course the ego will state otherwise. Love is of the individual self therefore of the ego, love is not a collective expression but this love can influence collective expressions through individual expressions. This of course brings us to the hundredth monkey theory where one monkey's expressions are soon expressed by many monkeys.  The question is, can individual expressions have an impact on the collective consciousness?      

https://hilo.hawaii.edu/~ronald/HMP.htm

http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm

Love and peace in the sixties was certainly a turning point, love was free and unconditional and peace prevailed over this kind of expressional love. How many loving people protested against war in the sixties? How many loving people protest against war today? War is simply too negative so it's ignored, this is but one example of insurmountable judged negative of today's love that is suppose to be more unconditional!!

Take the hundredth monkey theory. Today expressions of love would look at the dirty potato as being negative and subsequently ignored because it's dirty therefore negative. War was dirty in the sixties, like the potato to the monkey, but war was not judged as being negative therefore avoided at all cost, it was dealt with face on void of fear. Being truly unconditionally loving in the sixties brought about a momentary change, how is a love with insurmountable conditions today going to bring about an everlasting change, especially when the potato is judged as negative (dirty) therefore avoided at all cost?

Simply, the individual self is put above the collective these days, we believe change starts from the individual and goes out, so what do we do, totally ignore the collective because we have judged it negative (dirty).

In relation to the hundredth monkey theory; it wasn't an individual effort that brought change, it was a collective effort that brought change for without the interactions of the other monkeys, washing the dirt (negativity) off of the potato wouldn't have become a collective expression.