A State of Mind and Being

Written by Mathew Naismith

Can positive thinking lead to irrational optimism and self-deceptiveness? As of myself as I will explain latter, I never focused on being positive while experiencing trauma brought about by a chronic injury. Because I did this, I was able to accomplish tasks well beyond the boundaries set up by the mental and physical trauma I was experiencing. Just because one is not being negative doesn't mean one is being positive and visa-versa. This is likened to, just because we are not at war doesn't mean we are at peace, in actuality there is a lot that exists between war and peace, this is the same between negative and positive thinking. I actually prefer to stay away from extreme thinking processes, more is always better isn't true, in actuality moderation and balance is always better in the end.

 

I find articles like the following always interesting; they often go beyond the way we have been conditioned to think. 

_____________________

https://www.success.com/article/the-negative-side-of-positive-thinking

Extract: He’s not the only one who’s frustrated with what many see as America’s relentless push toward positivity and the treatment of happiness as a commodity. Not only can the happiness industry make us feel bad about ourselves, as it did with Wilson, critics say, it can topple an economy or worse, according to Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America. Unchecked positive thinking and “irrational optimism” led to the housing market crash in 2007, she contends.

Oliver Burkeman, author of The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can’t Stand Positive Thinking, says that “positive thinking has become a sort of allergy to anything negative. We are constantly on guard against negative thoughts, so that any time we feel pessimistic or bad, we want to reassure ourselves and say everything will be fine. But each time we do that, we inadvertently enforce the notion that if things don’t turn out fine, it would be a total catastrophe.” Rather than bolstering our resilience, he says, positive thinking actually undermines it.

_____________________

Today I am astounded at what I accomplished in my life, yes, I had to work within the boundaries of trauma but at no time did I see these boundaries as being negative or a positive, they were simply limitations to either overcome or let be. Never ever look at limitations as being negative, they are simply limitations created by circumstance.

We are well and truly conditioned to think if it's not one it has to be the other. I call this a black and white mentality, it's got to be one or the other when in actually most of what is, is neither of just black or white, negative or positive.

Why firstly have a dire need to only focus on the positives? The more negatives we perceive within our environment, the more of a dire need we have to be positive. What if you didn't perceive everything that creates boundaries and limitations as being simply negative, nothing else!! What is occurring to the environment because we have few limitations in the way we impact on the environment? There is no moderation in our pollutants to start with and at the same time there is no moderation, no limitations, to destroying the natural environment through clearing.

How often is our unlimited potential mentioned to us these days which is mostly based on positive thinking, a potential that is not moderate in accordance with its environment? This includes any environment. My environment was to be limited to the traumas I experienced in life even though I went beyond these limitations. When I excessively went beyond these limitations I suffered big time, I in fact compounded my trauma especially when I took no painkillers.

Most of the times I didn't need painkillers, this is because I didn't allow my pain to control me. Just because I didn't allow the pain to control me, to force me to take pain killers, doesn't mean I took control of my pain.

This is the way we are conditioned to think, if you're not allowing pain/trauma to control you, you must have control of the pain/trauma, a black and white mentality. I think anyone who has experienced severe trauma would agree with me, at no time are you in control of the pain/trauma, you just simply try not to allow the pain/trauma to control you. You take pain killer so you think you have control, what enticed you to take painkillers in the first place? Pain, pain is more in control not less when taking painkillers.

This is the same with negative and positive thinking, do you allow the negative thinking to control you to primarily have a dire need to think positive!! In cases like this negative thinking is more in control, not less, we are simply being self-deceptive here.

However, because I didn't take painkillers I now suffer with compounding trauma that can be compounded by various experiences related in some way to my life trauma. Any kind of pain can cause me further trauma beyond of what the pain should, of course this only occurs when I allow any pain to control me. If I took painkiller in sever circumstances in my life, it is unlikely I would now be suffering with compounding trauma. It's to do with moderation, moderating when pain/trauma was going to control me.

A lot of people are today confusing positive thinking with moderation, a balanced mind set in accordance with the environment we are experiencing, any and all environments. Moderation and balance is simply the grey area between negative and positive thinking, there are simply no extremes within this state of mind and being. What you can accomplish within this state of mind is utterly astounding while at the same time existing within certain limitations.   

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.           

Atheism Is Quite Correct

Written by Mathew Naismith

The question of what is or isn’t correct is a funny one only because the perception of correctness is as varied and as numerous as our perceptions. To get a grasp on this one needs to look at how many different people there are, not just by race or by cultural diversity but how everyone is physically and mentally different. Is one way to look and think more correct than another way to look and think? It really comes down to what is accepted which is governed by what is accepted as being correct. If it’s not accepted, it’s usually not correct, in all, correctness is usually and mostly governed by what is accepted.

For someone like me who is quite accepting, correctness can be seen in various and even opposing perceptions and ideologies, within this way of perceiving there is no absolute correctness, there are only variations of correctness. This simply means atheism is a variation of correctness, not of absolute correctness like any other created ideological ism.

So why am I saying atheism is correct? To answer this we must first look at why I think religion is correct, especially in relation to God and divine entities.

In recent times we have seen science create the God particle and most recently a mini-universe. The question science is rightfully and wisely asking now is if man can create such things, what would a far more aware intelligent consciousness be able to create? Of course the universe we exist in comes to mind. In the whole scheme of things I don’t think man’s wisdom, awareness or intelligence rates very highly but even in this conscious state man is able to create or mimic the creation of the universe through science perspectives.

The religious perspective was to get a far less intelligent, literate and aware consciousness, in ancient times, to perceive that the universe was created by a far more aware consciousness than man. Even today religion isn’t incorrect in this as science is showing. Religion, as of any ideological ism, is governed by what is or isn’t accepted. How would you be able to get a less aware and intelligent consciousness to be able to perceive through science perspectives? This simply would not have been accepted therefore comprehended. In actuality the perception of a creator of the universe was highly intelligent in my mind, especially in ancient times.

Atheism was to accept what religious establishments were unable or unwilling to accept, perceptions and perspective based on a different kind of what is and isn’t accepted. Of course you do have one of the oldest surviving religions that also incorporate science perspectives and perceptions to one degree or another, in actuality a lot of religions today are more accepting of science perspectives and perceptions. On the other hand you have a number of new age spiritual people who totally denounce science, science perspectives and perceptions are simply not accepted therefore correct.

Atheism simply avoids calling the creator of our universe a God, a divine entity, there is no idolisation or of giving thanks and a show of appreciation to our creator. If we are of this creator, this divine consciousness, what is there to idolise and/or show appreciation to? Of course you also have atheists who can never accept that our universe was created by a far more aware consciousness; their doctrines are simply unaccepting of this. You also have atheists who look at everything created as ego, an illusion. Each perception is simply governed by what is and isn’t accepted therefore correct.

To me, the closer to the source we become, the more we become aware we have always been one with this source. If we were all aware that we are one with this source, what would then be perceived as a God?  You have to have a perception of separation to have a perception of God separate to ourselves. Yes, the separation is real but it's still simply a perception of separation, there is no true separation only a perception of separation, within this, we perceive the creator as a God and rightfully so in a state of separation in my mind.

In all, to someone like me, is atheism correct within their own perceptions and the answer would have to be yes, however, this does not mean that religion is incorrect within their own perceptions, it simply means that each ideological ism is correct within what their own doctrines are accepting of.

No ideological ism is totally correct but they’re not totally incorrect either, it’s all governed by what we accept and don’t accept as being correct. In all, what would any of us truly know……….    

Student Teacher, Teacher Student

Written by Mathew Naismith

I think it's wise to look at the teacher being the observer self and the student being the participating self, one not being without the existence of the other.

Being that the teacher is only a teacher through being a student, in other words, the observer is only an observer through something to observe, the teacher and student are as worthy as each other. One is never without the other no matter how much of the teacher, the observer, we become.

Look at this reality this way, this reality is a school of numerous classes teaching numerous curriculums or topics, everything we are of is within this school. Yes, we could skip classes or school period; at no time does this exclude one of not being a part of what they have skipped.

Numerous classes can be and often are personally judged as being negative so we skip, ignore or denounce these classes, this is the student self. The teacher self observes, without judgment, that everything is of oneself no matter how much one tries to separate themselves from these negatives.

As when I went to school myself, math, English and science classes were mandatory, yes, you could skip these classes but they were still a mandatory part of the students teaching. Participation in these curriculums was essential within the school system; this is very much like participation within a 3rd dimension is mandatory even when our minds are not limited to 3rd dimensional spheres. Simply expressed, the school is primarily based on 3rd dimensional aspects of self even while numerous classes within this school teach beyond 3rd dimensional aspects.

Westernised atheism teaches the limitations of 3rd dimensional aspects of self while spirituality/religion teaches us aspects of our self beyond these limitations. Once we are of the unlimited aspectual self, it would seem to the student we are no longer of the atheist self, the self limited and aware only to 3rd dimensional aspects, at no time is this so. So once we become the teacher, we are no longer the student when in actuality we are never not of the student. To the teacher, the observer, the 3rd dimensional aspect of self is always present, only when we are of the teacher can this be so and even then the teacher is still observant of the student self, only can the student self perceive this to be otherwise.

It's the student, the participating self, that desires to skip certain classes because the student is unable to see itself of being of what the class is teaching. Yes, you don't have to express what is being taught but never perceive as a student you are not of what class you have skipped, ignored.

Time is a 3rd dimensional perception, perceive beyond time and you will realise that everything has always existed which simply means, you have always been apart of everything, no matter how hard you try to separate yourself from everything you desire not to be a part of. You are always the student as the teacher, in acutely if not more so the more of the teacher you become!! 

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.

Buddha Nature!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

Buddha nature actually refers to the truer self, primarily of the self void of the distractions and influences of the ego. The following question was presented to me on this matter.

_____________________________

Has a dog Buddha nature?

Actually P. RuèGer, a very good and wise question.

We could say that only domesticated pets can become this unconditionally loving, in this case the influence of Buddha nature is influenced by humans.

However, it is well documented that wild animals that have had their lives saved by human's show just as much unconditional love.

This then brings us to the point can animals, domesticated or not, be of Buddha nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

Buddha Nature: "The terms refer to the notion that the luminous mind of the Buddha is inherently present in every sentient being, and will shine forth when it is cleansed of the defilements, c.q. when the nature of mind is recognised for what it is."

Are animal's sentient beings?

This is questionable: "In Buddhism, sentient beings are beings with consciousness, sentience, or in some contexts lifeitself.^[1] Sentient beings are composed of the five aggregates, or skandhas: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness."

Can animals also attain enlightenment?

To refer to attainment is to also refer to an effort exerted to obtain Buddhahood. It is questionable if animals, unlike human's who have to deal with egotism, have to attain enlightenment to become truly unconditionally loving, actually, it's doubtful.

I myself agree with the following as everything is of consciousness.              

"In Mahayana Buddhism, it is to sentient beings that the Bodhisattva vow of compassion is pledged. Furthermore, and particularly in Tibetan Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism, all beings (including plant life and even inanimate objects or entities considered "spiritual" or "metaphysical" by conventional Western thought) are or may be considered sentient beings."

Human's need to be enlightened to the facts beyond egotism, animals don't unless influenced to the extent of human egotism.

______________________________________

I also received the following query from another person, "But I can't help but believe that our essential nature will make itself known somehow, to remind us of who we really are." The following was my reply.

______________________________________

Carolyn Field I think it does this Carolyn but we are too much within the influences of the ego to notice them at times.

Are you not aware of your essential nature? This is all it is unless the ego inflates it into something more comprehensible so that the ego can understand what it comprehends in the first place. Basically, to be more than awareness is ego.

In saying this, our egos underestimate a state of pure awareness, a state void of the influences of ego. Such an underestimation decreases the influence a pure state of awareness can have upon us. Our capabilities beyond ego is infinite in nature, there are simply no limitations.

Just to be aware is enough in a universe, a reality, of egotism.

 

______________________________________

I should also state that wild animal saving the life of other wild animals show a sense of unconditional love, even towards another species of animal.

Having sacred animals like cows or monkeys might seem ludicrous to the western mind but consider this, a show of unconditional love and respect is shown to another species. Does the western mind respect and show unconditional love even to other human beings? The western mind often shows total disrespect to other people's cultures, it's simply not conditioned to respect and express unconditional love towards anything not of its own. This is unless it can materially gain from this of course.

This now brings us to materialism, a state that has no desire or need of ethical or spiritual matters, animals simply don't have this dilemma. Animals don't have the dilemma of material, ethical or spiritual matters, they are totally free of these matters. They are then of course going to be able to express unconditional love a lot easier than most human beings!!

The essential nature basically refers to the fundamental element within all things for example, energy and spirit. Energy is of everything as the spirit is within everything, the truer self or the truer elements of self void of contamination through separation, for only the ego separates everything to quench its desires!! Animals simply don't have these dilemmas to battle with; it's totally unconditional, not just to do with love but everything as a whole without separation. How many spiritually aware people separate unconditional love form unconditional acceptance, especially in regards to our present environment, animals simply don't have these ego created dilemmas!! 

So are animals of Buddha nature, even possibly more of Buddha nature, our essential nature, than most human beings?      

How Truly Aware Are We?

Written by Mathew Naismith 

The caption that went with this photo was, "This is what greets you when you get to heaven."

I wrote in reply, "I'm fine with that, look at all those happy smiling faces that prove that true love and acceptance has no conditions what so ever. I am thinking of making a post out of this."

Do you have to be enlightened or spiritual to be and express unconditional love? Only does man think like this, so how truly aware are we!!.........