To What Is What

Written by Mathew Naismith

Before I continue, the above title is what is known as a prepositional phrase in English, for example of this, in Japanese, house from instead of, from the house, and in Finnish, house.from instead of, from the house. I tend to use both prepositions and postpositions, being that the English language is predominantly made up of prepositions, it's no wonder people like me are often misunderstood.      

Like any ideology, the ideology of love and light has its place; it is what it is because of its environment, without this environment it simply couldn't exist. This is known as a postposition as the example of Japanese and Finnish show above. The house, the environment, which created love and light, comes first instead of love and light coming first.

What we are talking about here is a mentality of postposition instead of a mentality of what is known as prepositions. A consciousness conditioned to the English language is obviously going to have a mentality of prepositions; love and light have always existed way before what created it, all that is negative/toxic to love and light. In actuality one creates the other; this is a postpositional and prepositional view/mentality. If you like, a balance of yin and yang, negative and positive, one not being above the other or less worthy than the other.

When I try to assist people into the ideology of love and light to become less imbalanced within their negatives and positive, I am often scorned. The reasons for this to do with the mentality of being prepositional, people like me are negative /toxic towards love and light. Looking at this in a postpositional and prepositional way, this is clearly not the case.

The truth can't be found in one way or the other, it takes all to see the truth as it truly is, not what we desire the truth to be in either one or the other. The point is, if today's love and light was of prepositions and postpositions, love and light could exist in any reality, not just within its own reality, it's simply not doing this at this stage. In actuality it's doing quite the opposite, it's denouncing anything not of it's own as negative/toxic.

In the case of today's ideological concepts of light and love, the house from is simply wrong (negative) when in actuality that is not the case at all, not in truth and/or truth in not.                

Nothing is Singularly Personal

Written by Mathew Naismith

Every thought therefore every action of ours is determined by the environment we are in, this includes our deepest personal thoughts. To someone like me, this is comforting, to others who think they personally own their own thoughts, this couldn't be any more discomforting.

Try having thoughts void of the influence of known and unknown environments, it's impossible to have a thought process, personal or not, without an environmental influence.

Environments are simply a variation of various and numerous influences; there is nothing personal about environments, even environments created by an individual or individual groups. The reason for this is their own created environments were influenced by other environments to start with, for example, the Nazi party was created through other environmental influences of the time. The universe as a whole was created from other environmental influences of the time, everything, including our personal thoughts, were created by other environmental influences that were created by other environmental influences themselves.

Nothing can exist without the influence of another, cut out the yin in favour of the yang, what do you have? This is the same with awareness and unawareness. What determines awareness void of the awareness of unawareness? To be truly aware takes a huge amount of awareness of unawareness; a true state of awareness is never without the existence of unawareness. Being unaware is a huge part of truly being aware.......

In recent times, my dreams are telling me I have reached my limitations; this simply means that my personal experiences are limited to my present environment. Do I have a problem with this? Well, yes, I wished to assist more, this of course would entail me to experience more, to become more aware. In one of my dreams I wanted to observe more of the environment so I floated up higher to become more observant, I was stopped by a solid white obstruction covering the sky.

Am I personally limiting myself or am I limited by my present environment? One of the environments is being human to start with; it is obvious I am being limited by the present environment but for a very good reason.

Being consciously limited by a 3rd dimensional environment is but one form of influence. Environmental influences upon us are not just limited to 3rd dimensional environments; however being unaware of this has no bearing of the effects of non-3rd dimensional influences upon us. My whole life has been determined by other forms not of a 3rd dimensional aspect, my personal life is not my own as of anyone's.

There are of course many people who are far less consciously limited, their environment is less restricted. For example, some people can astral travel at will experiencing different worlds and dimensions, other people are able to enter into another reality while in trauma, a trauma brought about by their present existence. On the other hand, there are people like me who are consciously limited to fit within the present environment. Does it worry me being this consciously limited? Only to an ego in control would this be worrying, also, being unaware has a lot to do with being truly aware.

From an early age I was restricted to how I became aware, I was strongly influenced not to read certain human knowledge based literature. Because my life was never my own personally, as of anyone's, I was influenced not to restrict/limit my human consciousness to certain human aspects. My mind had to be free in thinking while at the same time being consciously limited to certain other human aspects.

I am aware that at no time have I existed for myself. I simply have no problem in thinking my life was never my own.......

A Reality of Realities

Written by Mathew Naismith

Within this one specific 3rd dimensional reality, how many realities that are 3rd dimensional experienced? It's insurmountable, now how many realities can be experienced within the whole of existence? It's literally infinite in number; there are no limitations to the realities that can be experienced. This also means that we, even while experiencing a 3rd dimensional reality, can experience other realities that are not 3rd dimensional.

Thích Quảng Đức is a prime example of a 3rd dimensional being, experiencing another reality while still of a 3rd dimensional reality. Thích Quảng Đức was a Buddhist monk who sacrificed himself in 1963 by setting himself alight, this was in protest of the present South Vietnamese regime's harsh treatment of Buddhists at the time. Quảng Đức wasn't the only monk to do this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4LMBhapj44

It is said that these monks where drugged, going by my own experiences, it is most likely that these monks where not drugged.

It was my misfortune, as such, to experience an ongoing painful chronic disorder from an early age. The tasks I performed through my life did not reflect my physical and mental disorder, in actuality most of the times I seemed normal with no noticeable difference to the average person. The majority of my tasks, probably 95% of my tasks, were conducted without drugs, pain killers. Yes, to a certain extent we can become conditioned to a condition that might seem overwhelming to others, this however does not account for chronic disorders.

It's not that the monks didn't feel anything, this is in accordance with my own experiences. They simply nullified or softened the effects of a chronic disorder or experience. This is done by putting oneself into a different reality; certain psychotic drugs do this as well as something as simple as music.

One other thing, I know I go on about this a bit but for a very good reason, stay away from the perceptions of negatives and positives. What would a dark negative energy source desire you to perceive this kind of energy to be? Demonic, toxic and negative, this kind of perception simply promotes this kind of energy; in actuality these perceptions give this kind of energy more energy, not less. Just simply be....... 

Rocks and Sticks

Written by Mathew Naismith

I do tend to look at our environment in a different way than most people; this in turn creates peculiar/strange perceptions, perceptions seemingly not of the present conscious mentality.

What will be will be of course.

Rocks and sticks refer to a human conscious mentality that has been, for thousands of years, using rocks and sticks to defend what they have claimed to be theirs. This also includes claiming ownership of someone else's ownership!! 

So what has rocks and sticks got to do with today's mentality? Bombs have simply replaced rocks while missiles have replaced sticks, same mentality changed by human consciousness becoming more knowledgeable, of course this is different to becoming more aware and especially wise. So does a consciousness becoming more knowledgeable denote a consciousness evolving, especially considering that the mentality of the consciousness has not changed/evolved itself?

Let's now look at human consciousness in a different aspect to get a better idea of human consciousness at present. When you lose one of your five senses, let's say vision, the other four senses are often heightened, meaning, they become more sensitive to the environment. Have not our 3rd dimensional aspects become more heightened through the loss of our knowledge and awareness of the other aspects of our dimensional self? As quantum physics is discovering, we are not just 3rd dimensional or even primarily 3rd dimensional, we are far more it would seem. Being unaware of our other dimensional selves has simply heightened our 3rd dimensional aspects, 3rd dimensional senses thus negating all other senses.

And we are wondering why we still have the same old mentality of thousands of years ago!! The environment around us is forever evolving, however, human consciousness seems separate to this natural state of evolving in turn stagnating its evolutionary progression. We are like the crocodile, stuck in a cycle that will eventually end in human consciousness not evolving into another consciousness......             

The Lotus Flower

Written by Mathew Naismith

While sitting on a floating lotus flower on a still pond, one is of the observer and the participator, the observation of one sitting on a lotus flower on a still pond. The question is, is the lotus flower big enough to carry you or are you small enough for the lotus flower to carry you? The answer is of course both as both occurrences are occurring simultaneously at the same time.

I should point out that this was just of a conscious state I found myself in recently, don't take it seriously or to heart.  

To be an observer, one has to have something to observe, as quantum physics has discovered, it's observation that creates occurrences, not occurrences creating observation. In saying this, what is observation without occurrences, without participation? One is never without the other which means participation is as important as the observer.  

It is a trick in our present state that it's either observation or participation; it's quite difficult for us to even perceive, while in participation, we can also be in observation of our participation. Also, it's our observation that creates our participation, our reality and related perceptions and perspectives. Of course being in this state of observation, while in participation, can only occur while in a different conscious state than our present state of consciousness, a state predominantly influenced by participation.

It's also advisable not to perceive that one state is higher or lower, positive or negative, to another, for one to be aware therefore experience this state. Any kind of separation simply makes us less aware, not more aware. In actuality, while in a true state like this, it is impossible to perceive in higher and lower, positive and negative, for everything becomes as one.

Floating on a lotus flower on a still pond is quite significant, especially if this kind of experience was not induced or desired. The significance being that it just is without separation, there is simply no desire to be within this state above all other states as all other states become just is. All states are what they are without bias/prejudice or separation created by a desire to be of a certain state.

It's amazing what occurs when you are aware of something you don't desire to experience or be apart of, it just simply occurs without effort. Effort means to try to be positive over negative, good over bad, right over wrong. Any desired state experienced in this way is false in nature no matter how real it might feel, simply let go.......   

Limitless Awareness

Written by Mathew Naismith

This is what I mean about wisdom and synchronicity, words of wisdom leading to synchronicity, creating a synchronistic moment within the present. Considering that I was going to write about how we don't become aware but simply become less consciously limited, the follow remarks by Kim were well timed.      

Reply

Onederfully said Mathew <3 The separation is illusionary. So basically the collective is all there is, where simultaneously the collective is an illusion as well. I hear what you say and recognize this in me. Question is how separated we truly are when we experience ourselves to be separated...

My Reply

As you said Kim, separation is an illusion as we only perceive separation.

This is inline with the next topic I am going to write about; we don't become aware, we simply become less consciously limited to certain specifics like 3rd dimensional aspects. There is nothing new in knowledge or awareness as knowledge and awareness are not governed by time, however, aspectual time related consciousness is limited by perspectives and perceptions. Perspectives and perceptions fragment awareness, therefore consciousness, giving a perception of a new awareness/knowledge.

__________________________

Indeed, awareness is not of time therefore governed by the same limitations as time or 3rd dimensional aspects. No matter what we become aware of or create through knowledge, the creations that awareness has created have always existed as a pure state of awareness. What I mean by a pure awareness is there are no separation of awareness therefore bias therefore limitations within this state. For an example, a state of bliss is not preferred over and above a state of chaos; only in conscious states of limitations can this be the case.

States of limitations simply refer to states of consciousness where awareness is fragmented (divided) in numerous ways, usually through specific ideologies, especially the ideologies that are consciously limiting. Of course not all ideologies are consciously limiting to certain specifics.

Look for ideologies that teach unconditional acceptance, for only in unconditional acceptance can a true sense of unconditional love exist. An unlimited ideology will teach you acceptance rather than separation from desired aspects over others, yin from yang, negative from positive and so forth, of course this isn't for everyone as always........      

Looking Beyond

Written by Mathew Naismith

I do receive some interesting queries and replies at times that send me off writing again, it's as though some people are able to incite the inner most awareness from other people without much effort.

Sorry for this Mike, you started me off again which isn't unusual for you; you seem to have a knack, an ability for it.  

Enlightenment: Education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge.

(Hinduism and Buddhism) the beatitude that transcends the cycle of reincarnation; characterized by the extinction of desire and suffering and individual consciousness.

Enlightenment to me is of a state of the extinction of desire and suffering and individual consciousness that is reached through awareness. Could a collective consciousness, as opposed to an individual consciousness, become this aware? Looking from a human perspective, I would say no. Looking from a more open and aware consciousness, most probably and likely.

Indeed Mike, 3 dimensional realities consist of both polarities, after all it's these polarities, and at times opposing polarities, that create 3 dimensional realities like this. We do have a choice to be either expressive of opposing or unifying polarities or both. Our present human reality is imbalanced because there are few unifying expressive polarities being expressed; it's either one or the other in opposition to the other to an extreme.

If I was to counteract the negative opposing polarities, people and their expression, with extreme positivity, does this give balance to a reality? There is no balance to be had in separation, only further imbalance; it's basically what a lot of new age spiritually aware people are doing.

Imagine an old fashion scale; one side represents positive and the other negative. Now imagine the positive being further extended on the arm than the negative, how is this balance? It's the same if both polities of a scale were excessively extended, the further away both polarities are away from each other, the harder it is to obtain balance. The last thing we should be doing is distancing (separating) ourselves from the whole, from the pole that holds the arm of the scale. The closer we are to the pole, the easier it is to obtain balance.

You could look at the pole and the base of the scale representing the source of creation (God), the closer we become to this pole (the creative source), the easier it is to obtain balance in any dimension. You can't ascend into another so-called higher dimension without first being accepting, especially if the dimension is of unconditional love. How can you become unconditionally loving without first being unconditionally accepting? This is exactly what a lot of people are trying to do, become unconditionally loving void of being unconditionally accepting period. In actuality, people who are supposed to be more unconditionally loving, void of being unconditionally accepting, have less and less acceptance, not more acceptance.

It would seem on their part we are simply against these people and their ideologies, this couldn't be further from the truth, it is the way they think sadly enough. We are simply trying to help them to become aware that you can't be unconditionally loving without first becoming unconditionally accepting, even and especially while in a 3rd dimensional reality.

Acceptance doesn't mean we have to become what you accept, it simply means accepting what is for what it is. We know not what we do, if we did, we simply couldn't and wouldn't do it; this is the way it is.

Can we ascend (evolve) to a more aware consciousness in turn giving us piece on Earth?  If our consciousness is going to stay 3 dimensional, I would say not. We must evolve on from being of human consciousness, what a lot of people call ascend, to obtain this on a collective scale, a huge ask. It would have to take a huge shift in consciousness, a shift away from being non-unconditionally accepting to start with. As we personally know ourselves Mike, this is not easy under the present circumstances.

Kim Passie also brought foreword some interesting queries within his remarks.   

My Reply

Human perception is that neutrality is between negative and positive, it's the balancing force between negative and positive like old fashion scales. This is true in a sense.

However, neutrality is an entity all of its own, it's not really a part of negative and positive but it can balance out negatives and positives. Negative and positive acting/being as one is simply neutrality, it basically neutralises negatives and positives in a state they are no longer needed in.

Indeed Kim, just because neutrality can exist between positive and negative, doesn't make it of positive and negative, it's a completely different entity. It's like a triangle; neutrality is the pinnacle of the triangle so neutrality is indeed above positive and negative. Neutrality is between negative and positive but more importantly above more than between.

If neutrality was on the same line or level as positive and negative, you could clearly say neutrality is between positive and negative but as you say it's not, not really.

Reply

Wow Mathew <3 This is Onderfully put.... I actually felt this, this morning <3 I realized that neutrality can be seen as the space in which positive and negative happen...

My Reply

Well stated Kim, you seem to have grasped wisdom very well. To comprehend wisdom is one thing, to understand wisdom is another. You can tell who is really aware and who isn't in the queries and remarks they express. The people who have wisely learnt from their environment instead of suffered from their environment. You seem to have stopped suffering from your environment, you have basically neutralised the environment around you it would seem. 

A good example of suffering is excessive positivity in counteraction to suffering. Suffering has created a reaction of excess positivity, in actuality the positivity in this case is primarily based on negative suffering. There is a difference between negative and positive suffering. What is neutrality based on? Neither or both in neutrality to each other, this is why this state is so aware; there are no biases to start with.

Today's westernised spirituality is all about feeling good, usually in counteraction to the suffering, insurmountable biases. How do caring loving parents treat their children? They will suffer for their children so their children may not suffer, they will often give while going without themselves, is this negative? 

Spirituality, wisdom and awareness isn't all about us feeling good, it's about finding a balance in life while suffering yourself to save others from suffering at times, like caring loving parents. Is suffering negative when we learn from it and give so much? Feeling good quite naturally occurs when we become aware of this neutral state; this is without feeling good on the back of suffering. This feel good isn't based on suffering but a state of neutrality as neutrality isn't in counteraction to anything.

Good to hear that you don't just comprehend neutrality but understand it too.