Avoiding Suffering From The Truth

 

Written by Mathew Naismith

If we were truly aware, all we would do is laugh at our own and the collective human trauma we instil on ourselves. Yes, I even sit back in observation of my own participation and laugh, but at the same time being aware of why the human collective has become so engrossed in it's own participative traumas. In all, it is but a human experience.

Even within my 57 years, I have observed how our own human collective consciousness is even more today suffering from truths instead of learning from truths. We today don't chastise our children because it creates negativity, so we allow the children to grow up without responsible guidance. I have never seen in my life as I am today how the truth is judged negative, instead desired truths are seen far more positive because they are far more placid, even when of deliberate lies and deception. In my days growing up, part of our learned behaviour was to avoid abusive actions like lying and deceiving. To people like me, desired truths in opposition to actual truths, even when these truths are painful in their awakening, are far more constructive than destructive learned behavioural desired truths.

How often do we learn from what we simply judge as negative? A negative is simply an indication that we have not learnt from but instead still suffer from. To people like me, this human created reality of immense trauma of suffering and abuse is not even negative, simply an indication of a consciousness lost within it's own creation. So in today's spirituality, it is judged as being negative for calling out a person or even the collective consciousness for what it's expressing, even if this realisation may help this person or collective consciousness to overcome their own destructive tendencies.

Observe yourself or simply imagine awakening the collective consciousness to it's own created traumas. Is this honest caring action going to be seen by the collective consciousness as something positive? No. The reason for this lays in the learned behaviour of suffering from the truth instead of learning from the truth. Even within my short 57 years, I have seen the embracement of desired truths and the growing disdain for actual truths, mainly due to actual truths, like chastising children to create a more constructive learned behaviour, becoming a learned behavioural negative.

For something to be judged a negative is simply a sign of suffering instead of learning. Really, you cannot suffer from learning from trauma, from judged negativeness, you can only suffer from what you don't learn from. As soon as spiritually aware people talk of and avoid what they have judged as simply negative, people like me know this is a sign they are in all honesty still suffering from the truth, in the process replacing actual truths with desired truths.

I wrote the following separately to this post but realised it was of this post.

Proficient Mind

People like me love philosophising. To a lot of people, people into philosophy think more when in actuality it is the opposite.

Philosophy: The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics.

Any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation.

It is not that philosophers think more, it is that philosophers think differently, imagine for one moment extracting irrational thinking from the mind!! You are actually thinking more proficiently and effectively because the philosophers mind has extracted irrational thinking from the mind to one extent or another. As present circumstances have proven, irrational thinking abounds in human consciousness, of course it is the irrational mind that is the easiest to scam and control!!

And yes, the irrational part of our minds often takes offence to what the rational part of our mind is thinking. Why? Because the rational mind is not of desired truths but of actual truths. Today, it is obvious that desired truths are far more desirable and acceptable than actual truths, to a philosopher, this is disheartening. Why is it disheartening? Because it is a sign we are becoming more irrational, cluttering our mind with irrational thinking instead of uncluttering our minds with rational thinking.

And yes, the irrational part of our mind will see the rational mind as being too busy and complicated when in actuality it is the other way around, for a very good reason, the thinking process becomes less cluttered therefore more proficient and effective for the rational mind. No, I am not totally proficient in thinking totally in the absence of irrationality, probably never will be and this is the actual truth rather than a desired truth.

The mind is only as proficient and effective as the environment the mind resides in........Mathew G

Yes, it would seem the irrational part of our mind will suffer the most because it learns the least from suffering and judged negatives. And yes, the irrational mind may feel good within it's desired truths, but this state has always been finite in nature!!

Eastern and Western Philosophy

Written by Mathew Naismith

Stoicism is of Western philosophy where Zen is of Eastern philosophy, both philosophies are of a simular teaching, an indifference to pleasure or pain. All this means is that there is no desire of pain or pleasure, especially of pleasure in counteraction to pain for there is no balance created in such reactions. Yes, from imbalances a reality based on imbalances can be created where pleasure is intensely desired and often vigorously sought. This reminds me of the Roman Empire and the present Westernised Empire, where pleasure is vigorously sought and desired over all else.  

Both the Western philosophies of Stoicism and the Eastern philosophies of Zen are not of faith, even though Zen is of intuitiveness rather than reasoning as of Stoicism. Of course in saying that these philosophies are not of faith, one has to have faith in philosophies for philosophies to have any value. No matter what the teachings are, faith is needed in the teachings themselves for the teachings to have value and substance to begin with.

How many of us have faith in reasoning, where our reasoning is limited to what we are aware of at the time. We can only reason to the extent of our awareness, of course this is where philosophies like Zen come into there own, where intuition takes over where reasoning has left off. The same is with Abrahamic religions, where reasoning is limited to what we are aware of to what Abrahamic religions are not limited to. Religions period give us a sense and even an awareness beyond of what reasoning is limited to. In a lot of cases, reasoning is limited to materialism or three dimensional aspects. 

Basically, philosophies of Stoicism are limited to a reasoning process; this at no time makes philosophies like stoicism irrelevant. As what is taught through the teachings of stoicism, it is a teaching of an indifference to pleasure or pain, where pain or pleasure is not sought but simply occurs. In truth, teachings like Zen and Stoicism condition us to lesson the influence of pain thus often giving us more pleasure in any circumstance. At no time is pain or pleasure sought within these teachings, but most often pleasure can be the outcome of these teachings. Simply, it is what it is, no more, no less.

https://medium.com/@AlextheYounger/stoic-zen-10-crucial-life-lessons-from-ancient-eastern-and-western-philosophy-401d4f2ac646

Extract: Alan Watts has an interesting take on an old, provoking thought-experiment: he asks you to imagine if you could ask God any question. You may ask, “what is the meaning of life?” God would simply reply, “the question makes no sense, you are asking what is the meaning of meaning. It is only you that can create meaning in this world.”

Disappointed in this answer, you may question further, “what is the question I should ask then?” Presumably, God would smile, and answer, “Ah, so you do want a problem?”

The simple fact of the matter is that nothing is out of place. It is simply human nature to create problems to solve.

Problems and dilemmas are pain creating, this is why we ask questions that are related to pain and don't ask questions that are not related to pain. Considering that human consciousness is conditioned to suffering pain, no wander we ask such questions when the answer is obvious to a person not conditioned to pain.

Don't get me wrong here, most often we will learn to deal with pain when in pain, pain is simply part of the process of not being in pain, but only if we learn to deal with pain instead of suffering or having a desire to escape from pain. To desire to escape from pain is a creation of pain for pain has created such desires, try to remember this. What human consciousness is conditioned to, is to suffer from pain instead of dealing with pain. However, imagine if the allied forces in World War two ran away from the pain of the axis forces instead of dealing with this pain, far more pain would have been inflicted or suffered. Of cause what created this pain to begin with was the conditioning to pain, otherwise Hitler would have stopped at the pleasure he gave to his fellow countrymen.  

In dealing with pain, at no time expect or desire not to be in pain, as the philosophy of Zen and Stoicism teach, an indifference to pleasure or pain, where desire has no place, even of the desire of pleasure over pain. You must be careful here though, that you don't seek or desire pain over pleasure, pain will naturally come when a lesson needs to be learnt as of our present reality. Yes, I have observed this myself, where people seek (desire) pain to learn from, avoid seeking pain for this reason as Buddha discovered.

Yes, we will suffer pain of a lost one or of being abused, what is the lesson to be learnt in this?

In the case of a lost one, to learn to live on after such a loss, even to a greater extent without feeling guilty of doing so; to learn that your life goes on and so does theirs. I often live for them as well which makes life more fulfilling for me.

As of abuse or neglect, don't try to escape this pain or desire or expect not to be in pain. The desire to feel pleasure again gives the pain more credence, more power and control over you. It is what it is and move on from this. I know of a person who was raped in their own house, every little noise in the house now utterly terrifies them. You must learn to have an indifference to pain as well as pleasure, anything else is an imbalance and of all imbalances, pain is created. Become aware that all imbalances create circumstances of the abuse of energy as a whole. To deny yourself the freedom from pain and pleasure is an abuse of energy caused by an imbalance.

In pain, I don't desire or expect pleasure but I also don't desire or expect to suffer from pain either. There is a neutral ground that can be created under any circumstance, where energy is influenced in harmony with. I could not think of anything more beautiful, accepting, of unconditional love and of oneness than this neutral ground.                               

The Passion of Philosophy

Written by Mathew Naismith

Philosophy: The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics

There are of course other interpretations of philosophy; I however generally live by the interpretation above, of course this can be mistaken in thinking too much. The consensus is; there is simply no quietening of the mind within this kind of expression of philosophy. Considering that Buddhism is known as a philosophy, and the state that Buddha found himself in was of complete stillness, it is obvious philosophy can also quieten the mind.

So how does philosophy do this? Certain expression of philosophy frees you from the egos control. There is no more expression of a black and white mentality, negative and positive, bad and good, wrong and right, black and white, basically, everything becomes as one and is perceived as one. It's simply all a perception anyway, all separated perceptions simply become as one thus a neutralisation of the mind of all perceptions is created.

How I did this is explained in a reply I gave someone on a philosophy forum, this was in relation to philosophy itself.              

____________________

Philosophy, to me, is about free thinking void of the control of other ideologies and isms doctrines and dogmas. This is anything from religion to atheist materialism.

I love exploring the environment free from the dogmas of ideologies and isms, at the same time being free to use the concepts of ideologies and isms to explore this environment.

In dealing with people who restrict free thinking processes, I probably become a little too clinical within my philosophies. I am quite clinical when it comes to abuse period, either that be the restriction of free thinking, like the abuse of philosophy from certain groups, or mental and physical abuse.

Within this philosophy of true free thinking, I am able to explore the environment free from mental limitations. This allows people like me to observe parts of the environment other people are unable to observe I feel

I would not give up my free thinking for anything.

Also, after a number of rebuttals, not to do with the above mentioned:  

Sorry people, I often do this, I think way outside the square at times, this can be taken as an insult to some people, my apologies.

If you are unable to comprehend where I am coming from, simply ignore me, please. Very few people take head of what I say anyway and understandably so.

This is strange, I do have a lot of friends in real life who adore me, not sure why myself!! Maybe it's to do with my wife and not me!!     

Philosophical Freedom

Jean-Paul Sartre, French Philosopher 

Written by Mathew Naismith

Philosophies of Lies and deceit

A vacant space

In the absence of truth

A spaceless space

No direction within

Simply vacant of truth and honesty

In this lays vacancy

A vacancy of mind

For in this vacancy

Truth is unable to exist

There is simply no substance

For without substance

Where is truth and honesty to abide

For in this vacant space

Honesty needs substance

A substance of truth and honesty

This is within itself

Is its beginning

MG Naismith

What this poem of mine refers to, is that truth and honesty are unable to be recognised thus often misunderstood in a philosophy of lies and deceit. Often quite deceptively to protect and harvest what comes from philosophies of lies.

I wrote the following to the questioning, is courage needed to express intellectual honesty? I was interacting on a philosophy forum and received hostility against proven truths and honesty, to me, the reason this occurred was obvious.    

_________________

   

Thinking about this more; the courage to see the lies and deception within ones own philosophies, is courageous no matter what the ism or ideology one follows.

Take note of the people who slam, for example, religion and its philosophies, you will note that they are themselves most likely of the philosophies of lies and deception. Example: When did truths and honesty supported by evidence become abuse and disdainful? When did facts and figures become of abuse and disdainful?

The answer seems to be when of and the protection of known lies and deceit. Any truth, especially proven truths to be true and of fact, will always be disdainful to any philosophies based on lies and deceit. Example: An OP can be noticeably deceptive within its intent but still be supported!!

Are facts and figures disdainful to the people of philosophies based on truth and honesty? Unlikely to any great extent.   

I have noticed the more facts and figures you support the truths you speak of, the more hostile some people get. Also notice that not all the people become hostile, why? They simply don't live by philosophies based on lies and deceit. It is very possible they may not know this themselves, actually, most often this is the case it would seem.

There is a lot of courage needed to tell the truth in ways other people don't want to hear them. If your philosophies are based on truth and honesty, you will always get a hostile rebuttal from the opposing camp.

Should an intellectual honesty take courage to express? It shouldn't but it does in today's reality.

_______________________

Never chase truth and honesty within anything, for truth will come without effort once the philosophies of lies and deceit are put to rest.....MG Naismith

I chased truth and honesty in philosophy, there was little obvious truth and self-honesty to be found but in a few. Most people of the philosophies of truth and honesty will stay hidden, for they know what would occur otherwise. The reason I chased the truth in this manner, was to observe and become aware of the truth within the truth that philosophical lies and deceit exist within every corner of man, no matter of the isms or ideology followed.

A bit of self-honesty and truth goes a long way, to freeing ourselves from the bondages and limitations of the philosophies of lies and deceit.......MG Naismith

Philosophy - Environmental Creations

Written by Mathew Naismith

Philosophy, as of any other thinking process, is influenced by the environment the philosophy is influenced by; this includes the knowledge and awareness that the  philosophy is based or influenced by. A wise philosopher will never see another philosophy created under another environment as being incorrect to theirs; it's simply a different form of correctness based on the environment a philosophy is created under.

A person I greatly respect, mainly due to them being able to think right outside the square, outside normal human conditionings, replied to me with the following in regards to my last post, "Atheism Is Quite Correct."

.     

___________________________

Reply

I wouldn't exactly say that some of your statements are clear and unambiguous.

For many people Christ was the greatest philosopher of all time because of His ability to explain spiritual truths in a way that everyone can easily understand.

Christ often used simple stories called parables to explain those truths using examples from nature like how a tree produces fruit or how the weeds and the wheat must grow together until the harvest.

He also used examples based on human nature and the interactions that occur between people like forgiveness and kindness.

My Reply

A very good point to bring up Jeff.

How often is Jesus messages misunderstood or not understood at all? As of any philosophy, expressing philosophy using a particular environment is fine to the people who can relate to that environment, what about the people who can't relate to that environment!!

I put a Cambodian lass under my wing, I looked after her. This lass tried to assimilate into our culture to the point of trying to become a Christian and comprehend Christianity, she simply couldn't because the doctrines of Christianity didn't relate to her Buddhist environment. As I explained to her, her incomprehensibility did not make Christian doctrines and beliefs incorrect, they were simply not correct for her within her present environment.              

I also find it difficult to explain the unexplainable, words are limiting in regards to explaining about a consciousness way beyond the explanation of words. A lot of my topics seem to go beyond the explanation of words at times.

If you keep your philosophies within certain limitations, as Jesus did, using your environment to explain what you are philosophising about is easy. Of course even this, as history shows, can be incomprehensible to people of a different environment.

Your environment dictates what is correct and incorrect to you, what is comprehensible and incomprehensible to you. The beliefs and doctrines that influence our comprehensibility is an environment that is most often bias. We will naturally express bias while influenced by a particular environment, this is human consciousness. How bias and incomprehensible are rich people to poor people's dilemmas? This is their environment which makes being poor incorrect. 

What I find interesting is that people of other cultures than a western based culture, comprehend my writings a lot easier than people of a western based culture. This is interesting because a lot of eastern philosophies include short stories that relate to the environment.

When I can or it is feasible or I think of it, I do use my environment to explain where I am coming from, as I have explained, I find this difficult to do at times.

Thanks for trying to assist me by the way Jeff, always appreciated.

 ___________________________

I think Jeff wanted me to be more comprehensible on topics like this, explain myself in simpler ways and in ways that people relate to. If you can explain yourself in ways that people relate to, for example making reference to the source of all creation is less relative to most people than making reference directly to God, what you are explaining about will be more comprehensible. Trying to relay anything that other people in different environments are not conditioned to and comprehensible of is always going to be difficult.

Example: Explaining Christianity to a Buddhist or an atheist is going to be a lot harder than explaining about Christianity to a Christian and visa-versa, again it's all to do with the environment we are conditioned to.

When I say that atheism is correct in relation to there being no God, this is in relation to Buddhist (eastern) atheism. Once you reach pure awareness, what then defines a God when you are one with God, one with this state of pure awareness? However, the depiction or perception of a God, of this pure aware state, while in separation of this state of God, is to me paramount to our existence. There is simply no future in separation from this source no matter what you call it.

You can always explain yourself better so more people can comprehend what you are saying, what I actually focus on are the people who are able to comprehend me anyway. As I have been for a lot of people, conformation is always comforting; no matter how I explain myself these people will always comprehend where people like me are coming from.

People like me don't need to reach more people; we are simply conformation for a few people, not many people. I should also say it's a two way street, I have myself received conformation in the way I am thinking off of other people, it is the way it's meant to be.