Beyond the Comfort Zone II

Written by Mathew Naismith

It is funny but spirituality as a whole within its wisdom looks for the truth, even in the absence of facts, where’s science looks for the facts often in the absence of truth!!

This may sound strange, “At no time is fact directly related to truth, only when facts have been verified to be true.” As I will explain through my reply to a self-proclaimed atheist, facts don’t necessarily lead to truth. Actually, quite often facts can distort the truth, also, truth is often found within beliefs in the absence of facts. I also gave an example of this. Facts don’t verify the truth, truth verifies the facts or beliefs. A belief can simply be a hypothesis and still be truth in the absence of facts. Facts are simply of perceptions until they become verified truths, however, a belief can be of truth in the absence of facts. There is no truth within a fact until verified as being of truth!!

Science is simply of facts, not truth, and atheism is of neither facts nor truth within itself. Atheism, unlike other belief systems, is an empty shell on its own but other belief systems on the other hand can be of facts and/or truths. A belief system of doctrines of disbeliefs, such as atheism, has no substance to it, no value to become aware or knowing but to simply disbelieve in the absence of facts and truth on its own, unlike other belief systems. As one of the atheist doctrines state, “A lack of belief”, is a play on words to deceive that atheists simply believe there are no proven existing deities.       

“Here are scientific facts that were verified to be fact but obviously not true, of truth.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/10-false-science-facts.htm

https://www.rd.com/culture/science-myths/ 

If facts were directly related to truth, why would one then need truth to begin with? Not all facts produce truth to start with, even when seemingly verified. No, facts often don’t lead to truth. On top of this, you have a science that is known to be fraudulent at times.

It is obvious that truth is simply in the absence of untruths be it of verified facts or not. 

Science or atheism isn’t about truth, to the lead up to a hopeful truth, science is simply about facts. Why do atheists only refer to science being about facts instead of truth? Because science isn’t about truth, it can only hopefully lead to truth.

Actually, science should never be about truth itself, but to lead to truth. Why? Because once truth is discovered, that is the end of the story. Science is meant to keep evolving, it has to, which is different to religion. Sadly, unlike spirituality as a whole, atheism itself is neither about truth nor facts, itself. Beliefs can lead to truths like hypothesises where unbelief’s are simply an empty shell on their own. Facts can be distorted, truth can’t.

Hypothesising: To believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds

Belief systems can lead to truths, where unbelief’s systems on their own lead to, an empty shell. Atheism has only science it would seem to find truth, which isn’t within itself about truth, obviously!! Don’t get me wrong, science often leads to truth as well but so do beliefs. Facts have been known to distort the truth, probably on the same level as beliefs.

Before DNA was known to exist, DNA couldn’t have existed without science proving so, even when it did!! However, in the absence of facts, beliefs could tell us otherwise as in a Hypothesis. Facts often distort reality and truth. No, facts don’t always lead to truth but beliefs can lead to truth in the absence of facts.  

Mistakenly in my mind, atheists search for facts through science instead of the truth through science. To an atheist, DNA couldn’t have ever or ever will exist in the absence of facts, even when the belief in the existence of DNA was of truth in the absence of facts!! Without a doubt, facts can often distort the truth either leading to falsehood’s (fraud) or lead to missing the truth altogether.

Facts are of science therefore atheism. Faith is of spirituality as a whole. I think it is the faith that allows us in spirituality to look for the truth instead of unwisely looking for the facts instead. Faith won’t always lead to the truth but neither will the facts, so don’t be fooled in relying on the facts in the absence of truth. 

Some people think what I write about is dysfunctional (negative). I don't ever find the truth negative in any sense, unless the truth is distorted through facts and reasoning based on biases. I don't have  bias in favour of the positives as truth also comes in negatives as well.        

Beyond the Comfort Zone

Written by Mathew Naismith

This is what comes from going way outside your comfort zone can reveal at times.

Quote: “At no time is fact directly related to truth, only when facts have been verified to be true. This is interesting, which I never thought of before, atheists often refer to facts instead of truth, but spiritually aware people often refer to truth instead of facts.  Hmmmm, this is why I am not an atheist!!  Let’s be honest, one of the doctrines or laws of atheism is it must be of facts, not truth. Seen as more people are becoming atheistic, is the fraud in today’s science linked to this? Is today’s mess in the world linked to this? Add immoral deceptive militants to this equation, why not!!”

This will make more sense when you read on to the reply I sent to an atheist on the topic of atheist doctrines based on fiction, not facts.  So many atheists also totally believe, obviously in the absence of truth, that we are born an atheist or theist, also, that you can only be an atheist or a theist!! Yes, these two firmly believed doctrines of atheism are simply based on fiction it would seem.     

But, if you are not a theist, you are an atheist does I suppose!! True and false are often used in a different context to fact and fiction, so you are saying fact is exactly the same as true and false is exactly the same as fiction!! This is exactly what you seem to be saying Junious. I did make reference to fact and fiction, not true and false.

Fact:  A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred

Truth: A fact that has been verified

Fiction: The creation of something in the mind

False: Not in accordance with the fact, reality or actuality

As previously quoted: At no time is fact directly related to truth, only when facts have been verified to be true. This is interesting, which I never thought of before, atheists often refer to facts instead of truth, but spiritually aware people often refer to truth instead of facts.  Hmmmm, this is why I am not an atheist!!  Let’s be honest, one of the doctrines or laws of atheism is it must be of facts, not truth. Seen as more people are becoming atheistic, is the fraud in today’s science linked to this? Is today’s mess in the world linked to this? Add immoral deceptive militants to this equation, why not!!     

In relation to fiction and falseness, they seem the same but there not Junious. Fiction can often be based on fact and even truth, falseness is never based on fact and certainly not truth.

I hope you didn’t do this on purpose, used words manipulatively to serve your own purpose. Junious, we use quite different reasoning processes, I think this should be obvious to you now.

The doctrine of lack of belief, disbelief or whatever you want to change it to, is not based on truth or facts.  So if it is not based on truth or facts, what is it? The only fact there is, at this point in time, is that deities can’t scientifically be proven to exist but can in other ways. Are these other ways accepted by atheists? No, but they are to many others. This is not truth by atheists Junious, as atheists obviously don’t work on truths, which is a huge error in my mind. Hones.yt, I can’t ever remember an atheist making a number of references to truth, only facts which isn’t truth until proven to be true.

The problem with belief systems, including atheism, is militants, and yes, atheism without a doubt has its militants or radicals as well.  Can you now see the way you and so many other atheists, not all, reasoning are quite incorrect?

What you have done here disappoints me, not that should worry you of course.

I was encouraged by the creator of this atheist group to join the discussions on this group. I have a funny feeling they regret this now.  Yes, I am open minded and often honest within my truths, but this also includes being open minded and honest with my truths in relation to beliefs systems like atheism.  I was simply a shock to the system being as openly honest as I was.

It is not about changing people’s minds, it is about freely expressing one’s own views. 

Working on Our Weaknesses

Written by Mathew Naismith

My own path is to avoid playing up to the ego, my own or others. I must tell it how it is, not how the ego would prefer it to be told, knowing that the western mind is easily offended and often takes this offence as being abusive. Even what I have written in this paragraph already will no doubt be taken offensively therefore unjustly critically judged as negative by the western mind in all of us. Yes, the spiritual path for the western mind is a very hard path to follow truthfully and honestly, especially of self-honesty as I will explain.   

"Through my own studies and life experiences Shilpa, the western mind in all of us looks upon negatives as a weakness. As it is well known, the western mind will often only work upon its strengths, the positives, while ignoring the weaknesses, the negatives.  The eastern mind works the opposite way around it would seem, working on its weaknesses (negatives) while retaining the strengths (positives), in the process keeping balance of mind and being.

“Eastern cultures and teachings actually help in keeping balance in a western minded controlled world. As it seems a lot of easterners seem to be doing, never forget your eastern teachings Shilpa. It would seem this would never occur in your case.

Now, how many western minded new age spiritually aware people only focus on the strengths (positives), while critically judging the negatives as simply negative or of toxic vibrations? Within this process, the weaknesses are never dealt with, just simply buried/forgotten. Truly, this is the western minds idea of being positive and enlightened!!

The western mind in all of us is also easily offended as well, at the same time the western mind is abusive to others but don’t dare be abusive to the western mind in a simular way!!    

My own western mind predominantly influenced by a western culture has had to be honest with itself. Not easy for the western mind to accomplish within a western minded controlled environment.” 

So is it seen as being wrong (negative) to people like me when other people play up to the western mind?

A lot of the times the only way the western mind will see the truth is through playing up to the ego. If the western ego feels good, it must be good therefore not seen as a weakness, a negative to ignore and shun. You could say it is wiser to change things from within, change the way the western mind thinks to a more balanced way of thinking from within. I basically practice what I preach; playing up to my own ego or anyone else’s ego is not within my own practices, however, if your own practices are to do with playing up to the ego, this is the way it is. There is a lot of wisdom in trying to change something from within, but not all of us are here to change anything, just to be just in case the western mind in all of us decides enough is enough.

I am fortunate through a lot of self-honesty by my western ego that my ego is not conditioned to being played up to. If your ego is used to being played up to, anything and everything outside of this condition can seem negative, this is probably why so much today is critically deemed negative. And this is supposed to be positive and of the new higher consciousness!!

It is funny, when the western mind takes offence to guidance like this, all I am doing is being negative and simply wrong. The reaction from the eastern mind, even when of a westerner, is usually completely different. Don’t’ get me wrong here, people from the east can take offence too, especially when of the western mind, for only the western mind can take offence so easily in all of us. Yes, what I have written here is highly offensive and negative to the western mind and even taken as being abusive, when in all honesty all I am not doing is not playing up to the western ego mind.

Now, the western mind will see that I am representing the eastern mind as the positive, the strength, while the western mind is the negative, the weakness in our minds. You can see how offensive this would seem to the western mind, it is the western mind that is weak, not the eastern mind!! Just suggesting such a thing to the western mind is outrageous and deplorable, as I should know.

As of the eastern or western mind, it is only weak when imbalanced, as of anything that is imbalanced. Yes, the western mind at present is our biggest weakness, at no time is this seen as simply a negative to be shunned and simply called negative by the eastern mind, for the eastern mind doesn’t work like this. Yes, as of any imbalance this is a sign of weakness, so it is for the western mind that is imbalanced, an imbalance, a weakness, that needs to be worked on. Now, imagine if the eastern mind was more like the western mind, this imbalance just wouldn’t be dealt with in anyway, simply ignored and shunned as being simply a negative.  

This gives you a very small idea of what the western mind has to go through to become balanced, for our egos to become conditioned to working on our weaknesses instead of our ego driven strengths. Try to remember, it is the ego that becomes enlightened or aware, nothing else. Yes, the ego is our weakness if imbalanced through the conditioning of materialism and playing up to the ego in any sense. This is the weakness that we should be focusing on, not like we are presently doing on mass, playing up to the ego and only working on our strengths, in my own mind anyway.                    

A Consciousness of One

Written by Mathew Naismith

A strange situation, especially considering the circumstances in the world today, an ego that feels sorry for multinationals with all their material wealth and power. To me, it is a good sign that my ego doesn’t envy this kind of consciousness, but also doesn’t look at this kind of consciousness as being negative either.

I don’t myself look at open honest truth as being negative, quite the opposite. Yes, we may not like other truths but this shouldn’t make other truths opposing our own truths negative, but of course the tricky ego will state otherwise.  It is wise, in my mind, to be aware of this.

As I have experienced firsthand many times over, western material atheists obviously think that everything outside of their desired truths is garbage, even when supported by science, in other words a negative. How many new age spiritually aware people do the same, where so much today is negative (garbage) outside  of their own desired truths?  

So the dawn of the new age consciousness is all about everything outside of desired truths is negative (garbage)!!  For thousands of years we have not evolved from this kind of consciousness, in truth, in my mind, enhanced this kind of consciousness instead.

Yes, it is quite understandable that everything else outside of my own desired truths is a negative as this is going to make my own ego understandably feel good. All that is left is my own desired truths; of course the ego is going to desire more of this and nothing else. All else becomes garbage to be disposed of in any way. To be perfectly honest, this kind of consciousness is escalating out of control.  

A consciousness of one doesn’t, or more exactly can’t, separate one energy source from the other for a more desired energy source. All energy without exception literally becomes as one, not separated by what is and isn’t negative or positive by the ego. Multinationals are simply seen as a consciousness lost within their own material creation. Make no mistake, if the desire of the ego becomes paramount, this is material. Yes, multinationals will no doubt carry on with their materialism after their physical demise. The soul can simply become conditioned to materialism, in the process separating one energy source from the other. In my own mind, a soul conditioned to immaterialism can’t separate energy like this, instead judges an obvious honest difference in the absence of critically judging a negative. In the process creating a union of energy without exception or of what is desired.    

Energy as a Whole is Alive

Written by Mathew Naismith

This may be a strange way of looking at this but look at energy as a whole as being alive. What occurs when you treat another living entity on the physical plain in a kind caring way?  Now, what would occur if we treat the same energy in an abusive way? Truly, energy as a whole is just like this, now imagine the kind of reality we could create!!

As I wrote recently.    

“Sorry about this but I like to try to look beyond the human mentality at what humans at present perceive what is and isn’t.

Is enlightenment a purer source of love, different to what an unenlightened source such as human consciousness would perceive love to be or represent?

Considering I have not come across any human consciousness close to Buddha enlightenment, what would we truly know about what Buddha enlightenment/love  represents?  We often talk about some kind of higher plain, consciousness or vibration, but do we really know what we are talking about when we are nowhere near to understanding Buddha enlightenment/love? Yes, we have a very human or ego perception of what love is, but very few of us are close to being actually enlightened in any sense of the word.

Now the big question is, do we have to be enlightened to manipulate or influence energy?

The further humans become enlightened in knowledge, the more manipulative we have become in relation to energy.  So we can manipulate energy in the absence of actual enlightenment, but is it wise as it is obviously not wise to become enlightened in knowledge in the absence of wisdom?

There is no mistake that actual real enlightenment has become known to us as of wisdom. Manipulating energy in the absence of wisdom and/or enlightenment is indeed very risky, this is no different to what the collective human consciousness is doing at present.  As we know very little about enlightenment or even wisdom, we know very little about how to work in unison with energy.

I wrote something years ago stating that energy itself as a whole is alive, treat it so and…….The rest is beyond the comprehension of human consciousness itself.”

To be perfectly honest, what humans perceive to be love isn’t universal, it is simply human. Universal love is, for example, of Buddha or God enlightenment which very few humans have any real idea of it would seem.  This kind of love is caring and kind to all energy, to the same degree.  This means negative, bad, wrong or distorted energy is treated and looked upon in the exactly same way as positive, good, right or undistorted energy. Now, how many people actually do this? I don’t do this myself to any great extent but people like me are at least aware of this. 

So why are we abusing energy at an astonishing rate at present?

The way we are abusing energy is not abating, in all honesty we are abusing energy at a phenomenal rate. This abuse is actually increasing, not decreasing.

I have in my possession numerous possessions that are not mine to own but are simply on loan to me. How many people today perceive that they own their own possessions?  For an example, gold possession is no different to possessing control over energy in any way. You really don’t want to control energy as if it is yours to do with as you like, as to control energy in this way is simply an illusion of control over energy. Yes, you can manipulate this energy but it is the energy itself that has control. Can multinationals that control billions of life forms controls these life forms after these life forms reach the end of their life cycle?

The perception of controlling energy is really an illusion, what is not an illusion is when we influence energy in unison with energy as a whole. A prime example of this, in my mind, is the creation or existence of the universe itself. Yes, multinationals and certain spiritually aware people, for an example, seem to control energy. First of all this is only in part, not as a whole. Secondly, is a multinational or spiritually aware person in control of their ego?  The ego is in control, not you as a whole. Both multinationals and spiritually aware people can indeed manifest what they desire, but only within an ego controlled reality, not as a whole. Realities controlled by the ego are very limited mainly because of the illusionary perception of controlling energy. You can’t control energy for to try to do so is very unnatural.

Yes, when you work in unison with energy as a whole, the ego sees this as taking control. In all honesty, all you are doing is releasing yourself from the illusionary state of taking control of energy. This is the same with enlightenment. You are simply releasing yourself from the illusion of taking control of energy, a very alive energy. The only part of us that desires to take control of energy is the ego in control. In all honesty, we are within this reality only minutely alive at present.

How could you take control of an energy, an energy that created this universe?  Everything within this universe is of the same energy, and we are still trying to possess and take control of this energy!!  It is bewildering…….

Buddha Enlightenment

Written by Mathew Naismith

As it was asked recently:

What exactly do you gain from withholding love, kindness and honour from yourself and others?

My Reply: "Wealth and power." Also; "Is enlightenment, as in Buddha enlightenment, of wealth and power? It is simply of letting go of what is controlling you, this also means your own control. Enlightenment is all about letting go of control therefore wealth and power.

Can enlightenment feel like wealth and powerful to human consciousness? Yes, in the process negating real enlightenment. The trick to real enlightenment, love, kindness and honour is to not see it as taking control and turning it into any kind of wealth and empowerment as this simply refers to control.

Look at it this way Tawny, what are you doing when you take yourself away from an unbecoming circumstance or person? You are not controlling them but you are also not allowing them to control you simply through letting go of control. Let's be honest here, any kind of wealth and power is all about control, the very same thing we are suppose to be letting go of!!"   

You could also call this enlightenment Yogic, shamanic, God, sage, Shiva, Jesus or what ever enlightenment, to me it is still of the same enlightenment.

Love, kindness and honour are naturally a part of enlightenment without any intentions of energy expended to gain love, kindness and honour. If you have to expend a lot of energy to gain enlightenment, it is often known in the western mind as not being of Buddha enlightenment.

You may think honour has nothing to do with enlightenment. Honour in this case is like humbling oneself, bestowing honour upon all that is without prejudice or bias. This is not easy for the ego to do.

So does the ego have to expend a lot of energy to gain awareness to the point of becoming enlightened?

You are actually letting go of expending energy with enlightenment, but to the ego this will feel like expending energy. Expending means to have something to payout for something received for this expenditure. Within an enlightened state there is nothing you own to expend, also, nothing to receive for something you owned you had to expend to gain enlightenment. Even in relation to time expended, you don't own time to payout in the first place to gain enlightenment. Enlightenment is the realisation that you are not expending any kind of energy to gain enlightenment, for there is nothing to gain in the first place!!        

Living with the Ego

Life is a union of pain and pleasure

Wisdom is the embracement of this union as a whole. 

~Mathew G~

Written by Mathew Naismith

Through learning from pain instead of suffering from pain have I learnt this lesson well, how could I write such a thing otherwise!!

To a lot of people this won't make sense, and understandably so, for the avoidance of pain to gain as much pleasure as possible in life will lead to this degree of incomprehensibility.

Life is about starting and ending points, birth and death is a prime example. As we know life to be relies on starting and ending points, in relation to love, a starting point of love to an ending point of love. From the starting point of love there is pleasure, at intervals displeasure or pain, this is life as we know it. At the ending point (death) love is of great sorrow or pain. Would you rather not have that love to lose in the first place? With love comes a degree of pain in one way or another.

Be it to humble oneself to life and the union of pain and pleasure.

As a consciousness in the absence of ego would no doubt do, to avoid this would be of an ego in control!!

At no time can a consciousness of the absence of ego avoid not humbling itself to life as we know it, to life's pain and pleasures. Existence as a whole can only exist through union, the union of life and death, pain and pleasure, a state of ego and a state in the absence of ego. To avoid life's pain is obviously of the controlling ego for only does the ego in control desire to control anything. Could you imagine a consciousness in the absence ego desiring or even needing to control anything?

Union simply denotes oneness, a union of life and death, pain and pleasure, a state of ego and a state in the absence of ego. There is no consciousness of the absence of ego without a consciousness of the presence of ego. Look at this way, the perception of heaven gives us an idea of union, as the perception of hell gives us an idea of disunion. One is not without the other while at the same time not being of the other. Hate can exist within love as love can exist within hate, but heaven and hell can't exist within the other.

So if heaven and hell can't exist within the other, it is understandable that a state of the absence of ego and a state of ego don't exist within the other either. This of course doesn't mean the other doesn't exist just because they are not of the other. Because the ego desires to take control, it would certainly seem that any sense of control relates to disunion (hell).

Okay, would honesty be of heaven and hell be of dishonesty (deception)? A dishonest deceptive consciousness will always try to get the ego to take control of what the ego feels. Would this not to only feel pleasure in life? This is while life is a union of pleasure and pain.

I am kidding you not; life is a union of pain and pleasure, not a disunion of pain and pleasure. Any kind of disunion distorts life, possibly leading to the extinction of life.

I have stated before, "Embrace misery", for to only embrace pleasures in the absence of pain will only lead to the extinction of life. There is nothing wrong with life just because it doesn't give us enough pleasure, but for an ego who wants to control its pleasures, life is simply a misery and understandably so. You must embrace both pain and pleasure for one without the other is the extinction of both pain and pleasure, life itself.

You would think a consciousness in the absence of ego would be of the absence of both pain and pleasure therefore life as the ego knows life to be!! 

If your ego desires to be in this state in any sense, you are not consciously of this state but of an ego consciousness. This state of the absence of ego is not a state you desire or even need to be only of. Often a consciousness humbling itself to life's pain and pleasures is of this state while also humbling itself to life as a whole. It is this union, not disunion, of life's pain and pleasures that leads to an awareness of this state. This state is simply of the whole, while at the same time humbling itself to life's pain and pleasures. Life's pain and pleasures, ego, is of this state while, like heaven and hell, are not within each other, this of course doesn't mean one is separate from the other.

A state of ego in not separate to a state of the absence of ego, while at the same time not being of what the other is. But as the ego desires, one is separate therefore a disunion (hell) is created instead of a union (heaven). What have we created with desiring pleasure over pain, the disunion of pain and pleasure? The same is with a state of the absence of ego and a state of ego!!