The Mindless Western Mind!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

It was said to me recently in a discussion on the western and eastern mind that the western mind is controlling or maybe even of no mind. Considering that the yang and yin are within each other so is the eastern and western mind, one is never not of the other to one extent or another, it is therefore unlikely that the western mind is of total control and/or mindless. The following replies I gave to other people on this subject will explain this further.

The western mind, being of the greater ego, will of course judge someone like me stating that the western mind is mindless is judgmentally egotistic, however, the eastern mind observes this as simply pointing our an obvious weakness within the western mind itself. In saying this, as the western mind has it's weaknesses, so does the eastern mind. The difference is in that the eastern mind will acknowledge and deal with it's weaknesses, this is different to the western mind that primarily focuses on it's strengths while ignoring it's weaknesses.

_______________________________

Interesting Chinwhisker, this is probably why I relate Christianity and Hinduism, in the raw form, to be of both western and eastern mind, yin and yang, however, I only equate Buddhism to yin, the feminine, the eastern mind.

To me: Eastern mind = yin + feminine + of lesser ego

            Western mind = yang + masculine + of greater ego

A balance brings peace, God's kingdom, where an imbalance brings chaos, man's kingdom.

_______________________________

I also wrote the following reply on questioning the bible and the mindlessness of the western mind. It was interestingly mentioned that the western mind is of control or of no mind.

_______________________________

+Chinwhisker  It's all to do with how one is conditioned to read the bible, however, as I have found out,  prayers have been changed over time to reflect a different stance, is the bible the same?

If one is all ego, can we equate this to no mind? By destroying the very thing one relies on for it's existence to feed it's ego, I would say this is of no mind. 

China has destroyed it's natural environment mainly because of western influence through becoming more westernised.  Yes, I would say it's fair enough to call the western mind mindless.

 _______________________________

Primarily focusing on, for example, positive thinking or love and light, is focusing on our strengths while noticeably ignoring the weaknesses. A good example of this is of children being abused in every way, this is ignored by positive and love and light people because it's too negative or toxic to address. It's a weakness that is plainly ignored. If half the people in the world spoke against this kind of abuse, a lot of children would be saved from abuse, instead, the western mind focuses on itself and it's own strengths, not it's own weaknesses. By ignoring these weaknesses because they are not of love and light or positive, allows these weaknesses to flourish, in actuality that is exactly what is presently occurring.

I should mention here that stating Buddhism is equated to the feminine (yin) and not also the masculine (yang) is in reference to it's philosophies. I believe that Buddhism came about for a need of a philosophy and an awareness to balance out life as a whole that was and still is primarily of the masculine. Even though Buddhism is of a religion as well as of philosophy, Buddhism wasn't meant to be followed or used in the same way as most ideologies. I believe Buddhism should be used in conjunction with other ideologies, not in opposition, a lot of western people following Buddhist philosophies, in my mind, are using Buddhism in opposition to other ideologies, not in conjunction.

It's funny to think it's the eastern part of the western mind that observes these weaknesses as the western mind is unable to. Consider this; can a man (yang) give birth? It's the same as the western mind being unable to address it's weaknesses, it needs the eastern mind to do this. Void of the eastern mind, the western mind can indeed be too controlling and mindless by primarily focusing on the ego, the outer world instead of the inner world or self.

_______________________________

Supplement:

I suppose the way we are looking at past lives is more western than eastern.

At times translation between western and eastern is easy, at other times virtually impossible. I don't think everything eastern can be successfully translated into western and probably visa-versa. Language is one barrier but so is the substance or meaning. Considering that the eastern and western mind looks at things in quite a different way a lot of the times, this figures.

I was talking to a bloke from India about the bhagavad gita, he simply said it's virtually impossible to convert the bhagavad gita to English, you lose too much of it's truer meaning. I don't think western language has as much inner depth and meaning as eastern languages. In saying this, I think the old English language has more depth than today's English; I'm not sure on this though.   

The Eastern and Western Mind

Written by Mathew Naismith

As we become more integrated and communicative around the world, I think it's essential we become aware of the differences between how we think in regards to other people of different cultures. At times the difference can be huge and at another times quite simular. Of course with the dominance and control of the western mind on the rest of the world, the differences in how we think is diminishing, sadly, eastern people are thinking more inline with western thinking.

I say sadly because it is obvious from the below information that the western mind is more dominating and controlling, even at the expense of the environment to it's own detriment. You have got to wonder, are more western minded people trying to understand eastern thinking to bring balance and a moderated existence back to the world? I should also mention, just because you are living under a western or eastern influence, you can still think and exist to the contrary depending on the influence one wants to exist under.

_________________________

https://www.slideshare.net/adonissfera/east-and-west-thinking-pattern

Extract: The West has consequently developed a materialist science that is focused on the outer world--which it endeavours to control and exploit. In Asia, where most religions have arisen, consciousness has been directed inwardly to understand the essential nature of life.

The Westerners worked longer on the stuff they were told they had aced the first time. The Easterners concentrated on the areas they thought they had botched. Students from the West—where the cult of self-esteem reigns supreme—wanted a tummy rub. Students from the East were more concerned with fixing their blind spots, becoming well-rounded. The Westerners polished up their strengths while the Easterners addressed their weaknesses.

https://sureshemre.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/eastern-and-western-thought-patterns/

Extract:

§                  Patterns of attention and perception, with Easterners attending more to environments and Westerners attending more to objects, and Easterners being more likely to detect relationships among events than Westerners.

§                  Basic assumptions about the composition of the world, with Easterners seeing substances where Westerners see objects.

§                  Beliefs about controllability of the environment, with Westerners believing in controllability more than Easterners.

§                  Tacit assumptions about stability vs. change, with Westerners seeing stability where Easterners see change.

§                  Preferred patterns of explanation for events, with Westerners focusing on objects and Easterners casting a broader net to include the environment.

§                  Habits of organizing the world, with Westerners preffering categories and Easterners being more likely to emphasize relationships.

§                  Use of formal logical rules, with Westerners being more inclined to use logical rules to understand events than Easterners

§                  Application of dialectical approaches, with Easterners being more inclined to seek the Middle Way when confronted with apparent contradiction and Westerners being more inclined to insist on the correctness of one belief vs. another.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Asian-Thinking-Vs-Westerner-Thinking:-The-Cultural-Differences-and-Inferences-of-East-and-West&id=5671780

Extract: We can find the most striking difference in Asian and Western way of thinking. When Asian thinking aims for harmony, Western thinking strives for order. This is because the basic philosophy of Western people is based on the concept of liberty, free market economic system or liberalization of economic system. On the other hand, Asians do not give much importance to the aspects of free competition of the economic system. They are concerned more with the equal distribution of income or solidarity in helping each other among their communities, thereby assuring an egalitarian society.

If your also into the philosophical differences of views, you might like the following as well.

http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/cultures_east-west-phylosophy.html

Extract:

Broadly, speaking,

Western society strives to
find and prove "the truth",

while

Eastern society accepts the truth as given and
is more interested in finding the balance.

Westerners put more stock in individual rights;

Easterners in social responsibly.

                __________________________________

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

This is interesting stuff. I realise more clearly now why the western mind has problems with people like me, we point out where we can become more aware where the western mind only desires to focus on where they are aware.

Another example is standardisation. The western mind tries to standardise everything so everyone standardises when it is obvious the eastern mind doesn't. How many western people standardise spirituality with awareness? Of course to an eastern mind, spirituality and awareness are obvious bed fellows; there is simply no standardisation because there is no expression or motion of control unlike the western mind.

Another example is when the western mind ostracises or has disdain for people for having their own views, especially when these views are pointing out a lack of awareness. To the western mind, pointing out things like this is being critical, to an eastern mind, all one is doing is pointing out where one is lacking awareness. I am often ostracised/blocked on forums by the western mind for pointing out our short falls on my own posts; it's a typical western mind reaction.

Us westerners, in my mind, need to be more aware of our own short falls of the western mind, but of course the western mind only desires to be aware of it's grandeurs, it's strengths not it's weaknesses, this of course is it's weakness. 

I should point out that the eastern mind can be influenced by the western mind to become more of a western mind and visa-versa.   

Balance Creates Love

Written By Mathew Naismith

To me, a true sense of balance creates love through a natural process in states of balance, the reason I think this is explained in the following post I posted on a forum. Balance/moderation is simply bliss which creates a sense of love of everything void of bias or prejudice. A moderated thought process negates all extremes thus creating a true sense of balance that then creates a true sense of love.

As we go within, extremes have less of an influence over us, the extrication of these extremes are simply replaced with a sense of love. The reason for this is simple; extremes denote imbalances and lust/desire, by becoming less influenced by extremes bring balance which allows a truer sense of love to influence us instead of extremes. Influences from extremes are simply replaced by the influences of love.    

_______________________

This is interesting, is a true state of balance of divine consciousness (spirit) or human consciousness (mind)? 

Considering that humans have always and probably always will express extremes, it is unlikely a true state of balance is of human consciousness; it's probably why human consciousness struggles to maintain some kind of balance in life.

When we presume and perceive that divine consciousness is love and that love is above all else, is this not an expression of an extreme. It's very human to desire the opposite of what one is existing in, especially if one is not physiologically happy with their present environment.

Consider this, is not saying that divine consciousness is primarily of love not stating an absolute? If we took away all the love and hate within the world, all we would be left with is bliss, the reason for this lies within these extreme expressions. There is no true sense of balance within extreme expressions, in one trying to over power the other all the times, a true sense of balance simply can't exist within such an existence.

So why do we perceive that divine consciousness is only of an extreme such as love?

Psychologically looking at this, human nature perceives what it desires to be of, not what it doesn't desire to be of, especially if it has any kind of disdain (contempt) towards it's present environment. It is simply natural for humans to desire something to be what it's not just to escape from its present environment.

It is natural when a state of true balance exists bliss and love are present, however, when a state of imbalance exists, chaos and hate are present and naturally so. So is divine conciseness (spirit) primarily of and expressive of love or balance?  If the spirit within all things was of an extreme, everything would also express and be of extremes but there simply not.

So if everything of the spirit within all things is balance, why isn't everything of balance?  Where you have yin and yang, is where you have balance but you also have imbalance, it's simply a natural law of existence as a whole.

Human represents imbalance where divine consciousness represents balance. To me, we presume too much while collectively in a state of chaos and mayhem. The divine consciousness, unlike ourselves, is not of an extreme of any kind, we simply perceive it to be so because of what we psychologically desire.

As of many Eastern teachings teach, balance/moderation is the key, not love.

“Simplicity, patience, compassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in actions and thoughts, you return to the source of being.
Patient with both friends and enemies,
you accord with the way things are.
Compassionate toward yourself,
you reconcile all beings in the world.” 
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

 “Your hand opens and closes, opens and closes. If it were always a fist or always stretched open, you would be paralysed. Your deepest presence is in every small contracting and expanding, the two as beautifully balanced and coordinated as birds' wings.” 
― Jalaluddin Rumi, The Essential Rumi

You can be still and still moving. Content even in your discontent.

Ram Dass

Intuition, a More Conscious Consciousness

Written by Mathew Naismith 

 Is our intuition more consciously conscious and aware than our human consciousness? Is our dream state more consciously conscious than our awakened state? Considering the dreams I have experienced myself, this could well be the case. In relation to intuition, I have not myself experienced any significant expansion of consciousness intuitively but I have read of a number of cases where you could definitely say intuitiveness is more aware therefore more conscious.

In saying that I have not significantly experienced an expanded conscious state intuitively is not entirely true, I have made a number of correct predictions in my life. This on it's own doesn't qualify for me to say that intuitiveness is more consciously expanded to what we know to be a conscious, an awakened and aware state, however, in conjunction with other people's experiences, I would be comfortable to say intuitiveness is far more consciously aware than what we normally deem as being consciously aware.

Of course in saying all this, intuition isn't known for it's reasoning or observation therefore consciousness, I of course don't agree to this view altogether. I wrote the following on a forum.    

______________________________

Consciousness: An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation, also meaning, Having knowledge of, a knowingness.

Cognition; is the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning.

When we have a gut feeling or intuitive insights, we are not being cognitive, we are simply expressing intuitive insights, of course intuition isn't suppose to be of observation as well as reasoning. I think intuitive observation is made on a different plain or dimension to the physical plane/dimension.

This is consciousness even if our human consciousness is unaware of this, in actuality intuitive states are probably more aware and even more conscious than our human state of consciousness.

What about the collective consciousness, is this not more conscious than our human state of consciousness? The human state is often referred to as a dream state for very good reasons, it's only aware of what it's aware of through observation and reasoning which limits it's consciousness. Is human consciousness truly conscious or is our intuitive state more conscious than our human consciousness?

The human psyche isn't conscious because of the limitations of human consciousness, this of course is governed by it's awareness which is highly limited. What would occur if we detached ourselves from our present human awareness? We would simply free ourselves, our consciousness, from these limitations, we would in turn be more aware not less aware. A number of spiritual practices prove this is the case.

So when I usually make reference to consciousness, it's not of human consciousness I speak of but a much more conscious consciousness. I am often aware of my consciousness observing myself observing myself in certain states of consciousness, the funny thing is my ego doesn't always like what is being observed, it's a laugh really.

I think the human psyche and it's consciousness isn't as conscious as it thinks it is.

________________________

Is our conscious more consciously aware than our subconscious? The following explains why it's not and in actuality it's our subconscious that is more consciously aware. 

http://www.evsc.net/research/intuition-subliminal-perception-and-the-subconscious    

Extract: What I find highly intriguing though, is the fact that our subconscious mind has access to a much faster and more detailed library of knowledge than our conscious mind does. Studies show that our subconscious senses at a higher resolution (Small Difference in Sensation, 1884) and at a higher sampling rate (Mere Exposure Effect, 1980) than we are aware of.

Within 1-2 seconds intuition can tell you if a person might be lying to you, if a chess game might be lost or if a situation might become dangerous. It tells you in the form of a gut-feeling, delivering the final conclusions of a long debate without revealing any of the rational behind it. It relies on your unconscious picking up on cues in the environment, on discovering micro-expressions on someone’s face, on comparing situations to hundreds and thousands similar ones housed in your memory and even digs into genetically and biologically hard-coded instincts. 

________________________

Now consider a consciousness outside human influence, outside human conscious limitations of the brain, now consider the intuition from a mind outside these human limitations. What we call our conscious state is far less consciously aware than we could ever imagine, of course this is going to be hard to imagine for a consciousness with so many limitations and so consciously unaware.

When spiritual people say they have become enlightened, they mean to say they are more consciously alive and aware than ever before, of course enlightened means becoming more consciously aware than before. You could also say enlightenment is also an awakening, an awakening from a conscious state that is in actuality anything but consciously aware. 

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.                 

Infinite and Finite Ideologies /Philosophies

Written by Mathew Naismith

Before considering following an ideology and or philosophy consider this, which one's are limiting and which one aren't. A good example of this is the ego limiting or liberating       physically and through it's ideologies and /or philosophies. Is one set of ideologies and /or philosophies stifling/limiting to all other ideologies and /or philosophies within an ideology/philosophy?

Can an ideology/philosophy be infinite in nature if it has limits within it's ideologies and philosophies? The answer of course is no as all limitations are of the finite and not of the infinite, infinite simply refers to which that is limitless where's finite refers to which that is limited. Do we want to be governed by what is finite or infinite in nature? Considering that human consciousness is limited and that divine consciousness is limitless, we need to make a choice which one we want or even need to be governed by.

Is it wise to be governed entirely by an ideology/philosophy that is infinite in nature while existing in an existence that is governed by finite consciousness?

Infinite consciousness simply means there are no limitations within the expressions of this consciousness; this consciousness therefore is able to be expressed in a finite existence. However, finite consciousness is unable to be expressed within an infinite consciousness because of it's limitations. You simply can't limit yourself to human perspectives within divine consciousness because divine consciousness is divine because it's unlimited (infinite) nature.

I should say when I talk about a divine consciousness, I am talking about a consciousness that is unlimited and infinite in nature, in actuality, divine consciousness is able to create anything and everything because it's not limited.

The following are my replies to other people on a forum, life can be limiting or limitless, this is our choice.

____________________________

I don't faze you do I I Spirit 3, I respect this; you simply just go with the flow within the present, in my mind quite commendable.

Yes, I suppose so, is love and light a creation from it's opposite making the opposite just as worthy as love and light or visa-versa.  I suppose motion works like this, action reaction, push and pull, cause and effect. I was speaking with a Malaysian bloke for some time on and off, he often mentioned the natural flow of the  push and pull effect of motion, my western mind had a hard time comprehending where he was coming from at times but in all it made sense to me.  He basically said all we need to do is get off the treadmill for all motion creates delusions to one extent or another. 

I simply concur, everything is of and comes from spirit/consciousness.

You know how I bag/acknowledge the ways of a black and white mentality, I too express this because how is the ego suppose to become aware if it's not put in a way that the ego can comprehend and understand?  Motion is often of black and white for instance, light and dark dominating each other, however, to get off the treadmill one has to learn the ways of the black and white mentality of the ego, the paradox is, the ego needs a black and white comprehension to do this, to start with, but know when to let go of this black and white mentality as well.

It's indeed all natural but I can see that it might not seem that way as well.

____________________________

Do we need to plan therefore control?  I think the ego needs to plan where our divine self doesn't, what is there to plan when you are everything and are aware of everything?

In my mind, we need to be caring thoughtful of the ego without being controlling, I often think of the ego as my child that needs my loving attention to become aware and adult in it's motions, otherwise it's going to be and act in a self-cantered way like a spoilt brat. I think our present reality shows this.

You don't have to be controlling towards your child, just simply guiding the child through simple awareness. Guiding isn't controlling, it's leading by example, going with the flow of awareness rather than going against the flow of awareness. Control is set to certain specifics of awareness, it's only of the awareness of what can be controlled by the ego, all else is usually discarded or ignored.

The thing with love and light is it's apart of the process that was created by the process itself, the process of the ego being in control. Think of it as a treadmill, the control of the treadmill keeps us in motion but when we get off the treadmill; are we still controlled by the treadmill? We simply got off the process of control. Getting off from one life process creating another life process is the same as getting off from the control of the treadmill; we simply stopped the ego controlling us thus creating yet another process and on it goes.

I think treating the process of love and light as a be and end all is a huge mistake as it's still apart of the process of control. I have spoken to a number of Eastern minded people on this, they all say all we need to do is release ourselves from this control, from this process, to be our whole self. Let's be honest, love and light is still about taking control rather than releasing it. I think the Western mind has a huge problem in comprehending this; it's probably why so many Western minded people are upset with me in what I write, I'm simply seen as a threat to the process of control. 

My stepdaughter Karla has won three world titles in a row now; it's a world record in women's IPSC shooting. We guided Karla rather than controlled Karla.       

I Simply Just Don't Get It!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

If you are not into conflict resolution or learning through and from conflicts, it is unlikely you will like this post.

This post once again pertains to a forum I am presently involved with. In respect, I have only inserted my responses to other people that pertain to a particular post of mine that at this point has over 407 views. It's not big number of views but it does show that a number of people are interested in the topics mentioned in this post.  I replaced names with four ex.'s (XXXX).

___________________________

I am so ignorant sometimes.

I presumed that everyone into spirituality would comprehend and understand how a consciousness void of black and white mentality would perceive everything. There is only one so how would one offend or be offensive? To be offended or offensive takes one to be good (positive) and the other bad (negative). My ego isn't offended by XXXX motions/reactions here but it is annoyed and worried at her persistence to push her own black and white mentality upon me. 

A black and white mentality separates everything from negative to positive, high to low and so on; a consciousness void of a black and white mentality simply doesn't perceive like this, all that is observed is motion of one kind or another.  I don't have a bias or a desire of something higher or lower, the strange thing is I think I never truly did. 

I ignorantly thought everyone would comprehend and understand how this kind of consciousness worked but they don't, I owe everyone, especially XXXX and XXXX, a huge apology.

You ever get the feeling you know something and then something like this occurs and you find you don't?  I am simply flabbergasted at my own ignorance, my humblest apologies, I simply had no idea. Get this though, my wife understands how this kind of consciousness works, I just presumed so would many other spiritually aware people, ignorance certainly isn't bliss.

I'm in a different world and I suppose I always have been, I was ignorant to this as well, my humblest apologies everyone.  And please don't get the idea that my world is higher or lower in stature, it's simply just a different world. Just be aware that the ego often perceives otherwise as it would seem, there is simply no known narcissism expressed here by me.

_______________________

What is inside for one isn't inside for another, the perception there is some absolute truth that everyone is of the same inner being isn't true in my mind. How many different perceptions of the inner self are out there to start with?

Now, which one is right over and above the others? We simply and obviously don't have the same inner perspectives XXXX. Why do you seem to be projecting an absolute here, that all inner perceptions are the same?

Why then push inner perceptions as being the only true one onto others who know different? Lets be truthful here, going onto someone else's post and forcefully projecting your own absolutes of the inner self so much is projecting an absolute.

Some people go in and the only thing they see is light and love when there is so much more, it's literally infinite. To a lot of people who go no further than love and light, these people often perceive only light and love is projected through the inner being, this is simply not the case.  Is the inner being limited to light and love? You would think so, going by my own experiences though, it's literally unlimited, it's infinite in nature.

To me you are limiting the inner being to certain perceptions and perspectives, not everyone has the same inner being so why push your own perceptions of your own inner being onto others.

We want to help people realise what, that our own personal perceptions of the inner being, being the same for everyone, in other words limited to certain set projected perceptions!!

This is exactly what I mean about black and white mentality, it's the same for everyone when it's obviously not, not through the experiences I have had anyway.      

So someone like me has not explored inside, your joking aren't you? Just because my inner beings perceptions are not the same as yours!! This is pretty shallow/limited in my mind XXXX. Everyone's exploration is different, this doesn't mean they haven't explored but you obviously think they haven't because it's not the same as yours!! 

It is obvious I am of a different world to you, XXXX and XXXX; this doesn't mean people like me haven't explored the inner being. We all simply don't express the same inner being perceptions XXXX.

In the future I won't project my own views on other people's posts on here, not that this would have helped in this case, however, I do think the reaction I got here did stem from me saying that love is a motion therefore ego on another post.

XXXX, the inner being isn't as limited as you perceive, it's literally infinite in nature but of course you must find this out for yourself to really know this. Are my own inner projected perceptions of the inner being of everyone else's? Absolutely not, this doesn't mean that others haven't gone within does it? 

You often reflect a black and white mentality XXXX, which one of us out of XXXX and I have not gone in, in accordance with your own inner exploration? 

Can the divine consciousness express disdain, meaning, refuse acknowledgment through contempt?

_____________________________

It wouldn't matter how a person like me expressed themselves, a true love and light person could not themselves express disdain in any sense like I described because distain can only be expressed by an ego in control. The ego simply controls people to express contempt.

Sadly, I have not been on one forum where the owner and other members of the forum have even come close to expressing any kind of divine consciousness, in actuality quite the opposite. I am usually critically judged and labelled some kind of ego maniac or worse or I am simply judged as not being of the inner being, of course as they are.

I am myself not a true love and light person I however express way more love and light than people who claim to be of love and light or of exploring their inner being when it's presumed I haven't. I simply don't have disdain/contempt for anyone; of course the ego is going to see this differently for obvious reasons.

If you are showing any kind of contempt for me at all, it is obvious you are nowhere near being of the divine consciousness or love and light.

I find the reactions I get quite interesting but also saddening. I should also say that there are people who are observers of these forums who are truly of love and light, it's just they don't dare speak up or have no need to speak up.

_______________________________

"I do have a problem with megga ego who

build themselves up by putting others down and can't even see they are doing it."

Is not a megga ego in line with an ego maniac? Not once in knowing XXXX have I critically labelled her an ego maniac or narcissist even though it is obvious she quite often puts herself well above other people like me, after all I am something XXXX noticeably has disdain for and wants to change to her kind of world, as mine is disdainful.

How many people into spirituality these days show an obvious disdain for the perception of God and/or religion. There should be less judgment therefore less disdain but there is a lot more judgment therefore a lot more show of disdain.

God to me represents a true state of oneness because it represents all of what is void of desiring to be of one's desires, this includes what we personally perceive how a divine consciousness would be like. When I mention God or religion, certain people showing obvious disdain for God and religion often try to hang me in some way. The perception of God isn't just pure awareness or nothingness or ego, the perception of God represents everything, this gives the ego an idea of a true sense of oneness in my mind.

In regards to religion, religion is as good or bad as the people of the religion are as of any ideology or philosophy, to people like me it's this simple. People will be people.

In regards to love and light, how old is the perception of love and light? Within my own knowing, it goes way back to the antediluvian times, its not just from some old consciousness, it's ancient, so why didn't it work back in the antediluvian period?

To my knowledge it did to a certain degree but also to my knowledge love and light became yet another be and end all, they simply didn't go on from love and light. It's impossible to limit an infinite consciousness but it's not impossible to limit a perception of a consciousness. Once we have a fixed (limited) perception of a consciousness, the consciousness involved becomes finite in nature.

If even an ounce of God's consciousness directly expressed itself today, it would be hung and labelled some kind of ego maniac or more likely something a lot worse if it didn't express itself in line with other people's fixed perceptions. I simply just don't get it......

______________________

If you are willing to learn through forums at the same time being expressive of your own inner being/world, it is likely you will have to learn through conflicts, especially if your own inner being/world is incomprehensible to other people.

I wonder at times if it's worth it, it's probably why I don't become involved with too many forums these days. Forums are not bad places to learn through but they can be daunting as in intimidating, it's really up to the individual if you are willing or able to learn through forums, especially if your world is incomprehensible to a lot of people. If you are already traumatised, it is advisable to stay away from forums that don't project your kind of inner being/world.

If on the other hand you can observe without becoming a participator of these forums, these forums can be quite enlightening. In saying this, after all this time on and off forums, I still simply don't get it, just maybe because I am participating too much instead of simply observing!!