Learning from Our Ignorance

Written by Mathew Naismith

Should we berate or hold our own selves to account, to the negatives, we have expressed in the past? This can be anything from saying the wrong thing that hurt other people, to not being loving enough and even showing disdain through judgement of other people. To be truly positive, or as I say constructive, the answer is too obvious, no, so why do so many people berate and even critically judge the present reality as being negative or even toxic?

To learn from our human ignorance, should we not learn from the past and present reality instead of continually suffer from it? To critically judge anything negative is to suffer from what we should instead be learning from. If I said the wrong thing at the wrong time to someone, is it constructive or positive to berate myself thus suffering from my own ignorance, this is instead of learning from my ignorance?

Once you start learning from ignorance/suffering, either that be indivisibly or collectively, it is impossible to judge this ignorance/suffering as being negative and especially toxic. So why are so many more people expressive of negatives and even toxic expressions in westernised spirituality today? Separation, a separation from what the individual or a group, as opposed to a collective, have deemed negative. As soon as someone expresses this that or the other is negative, especially toxic, I know within myself that they are still suffering from what they should in fact be learning from. In all honesty, anyone truly so-called positive/constructive person can be within any environment and still remain constructively expressional in the absence of any perceived negatives.

So what so many call positive and even spiritual today or of love and light, is of the ignorance of any judged negative or toxic environment, this is while being focused on separating ourselves from judged negatives and toxic environments!! In all honesty to oneself, we, ourselves, create what is negative and of a toxic environment when we persist in suffering from what we should in fact be learning from.

What is of the present is of the past, in that the past is still of the present. If we learnt from the past instead of suffering from the past, there is no way we could critically judged the past, which is of the present still, negative and especially of a toxic environment. The past is still of our present reality because we still haven't learnt to learn from our past, we still call the past that created the present reality negative and even toxic!! Is this in all honesty being constructive/positive? We even call being in the absence of negatives and toxic environments being spiritual, all else not spiritual!! A truly aware soul in the first place has nothing to be in the absence of to be constructive or spiritual to start with.

The question is now, should we stay within an environment that seemingly will always suffer from an environment instead of learning from an environment?

I have personally extracted myself from certain kinds of environments, to assist in environments that wants to learn instead of suffer from an environment. Also, once you have learnt from an environment, move on to another environment even if the environment seems negative to you. In all honesty, if it seems negative to you, you have something to learn from it.

A consciousness that doesn't learn from their environment isn't negative or toxic, just ignorant or unaware of how to learn from an environment, a consciousness simply lost within its own creation........                                 

Consciousness of an Enlightened One

Written by Mathew Naismith

An enlightened one (person) is confronted with a positive loving person and a negative hateful person, according to the ego, within their own immediate environment. Neither person is treated any different to the other. So wouldn't the enlightened one feel negative vibrations from the person who is negative and hateful, and positive vibrations from the person who is positive and loving?

If you understand this kind of enlightened consciousness, you will be aware that this kind of consciousness is unable to feel negative or positive vibrations, for all separation of negatives and positives are determined and created by the ego. The only way that any consciousness can feel negative and positive vibrations, is to separate consciousness into parts. Of course the only part of us that does this is the ego. Make no mistake though, only the ego can determine if the ego is negative because of it's separation of consciousness. The main natural attribute of the ego is to separate thus create motion, therefore all that is motion is ego.

Take speeding along in a car, the ego has separated its immediate environment, the vehicle, from the rest of the environment. The perception of speed can only be determined through the separation of one environment from another.   

https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2536852 

We might then think to get from one point to another we need motion which relates to distance/space therefore time.

Motion is not time but can be determined or influenced by time, however, ego directly relates to motion but motion is not always related to time. Why? I remember hearing about a traveller who stopped in one town in outback Australia, who saw the same exact aboriginal boy in one town than in another hundreds of kilometres away in the same day. Consciousness, even being of time, isn't always determined by the factors of distance therefore time, but motion is always determined or created by the ego. The ego determined to be in one place one minute and in another place in another minute.  

For the enlightened one, a consciousness that is not determined or influenced by time, motion or ego, therefore not of separation, will understandably treat each person as being simply expressive of motion therefore ego.

Is one vibration or motion more pleasant or unpleasant than another? To an enlightened one, all that one is aware of is that one existence is of the ego (motion), and the other of egoless (motionless), all else is simply a perception created by the ego. In saying this, there is still no separation of the ego or egoless consciousness.

How many people today think we all came from a starting point, being it love and light, a state absent of the ego or of some higher state of being? Considering this higher state not to be determined by time/motion, when did the starting point of a lower consciousness begin in a timeless motionless state? As of the egoless self, the ego self has always existed, it's just that the ego can seem more in motion within time. Make no mistake, the ego always desires to be of some kind of higher state of being, and to have only started off from this higher state.

In all honesty, the ego can just as much if not more so be expressional of motion in the absence of time. As what we call physical is not really all that physical compared to other existences, just denser within its motion, within its physicality. When a consciousness is determined by time, the consciousness in this kind of motion naturally becomes denser; giving the experiencer an incorrect perception of what represents a physical existence. All of what is physical within the universe is simply a reflection of what is truly physical, of the ego. Time doesn't determine what is more physical, but motion/ego does. Time simply makes a consciousness denser in motion, not more physical.

Think on this. A mathematician will often visualise a mathematical formula to then express this visualisation in a denser format which is then determined by time, space and distance. An architect or inventor will do the same, thus creating what seemed non-physical into something physical, something that takes up space therefore is determined to be more physical, not just simply denser!!

So why doesn't an enlightened one treat or see a difference in a negative hatful person compared to a positive loving person? As of myself, a very difficult conscious state to truly comprehend to any great extent, probably because of our conscious conditioning to motions determined by time. 

For Only Our Ego's Suffer

Written by Mathew Naismith

What if I stated that if we were all enlightened beings, not one of us would think twice of experiencing this reality again no matter what our experiences were!! In all honesty, the ego in control would refute this to the bitter end, why? What doesn't serve the control the ego desires to obtain and retain over it's self and its environment, will be dismissed or deemed a negative one must stay away from to gain or retain control. Of course an ego that isn't about obtaining and retaining control is a different matter.

How many of us deem spiritual, physical and mental peek proficiency as an ultimate state of being? What if I stated that being spiritual doesn't mean one is enlightened!! Being spiritual is simply the acknowledgment of a non-material existence from the acknowledgment of a material existence. In truth, Buddha experienced his enlightenment while at he's lowest level of physical and mental proficiency as of many who have become enlightened. Through this enlightenment, one then realises that a balance between the non-material and the material world is a far wiser way to exist, however, to realise this one must first suffer.

In truth, the only part of us suffering is the ego, of course there is also a difference between suffering from the egos suffering and learning from the egos suffering. Enlightenment simply comes from learning from the egos suffering. Enlightenment is simply all about letting go of the ego, especially of the controlling ways of the ego. The more our egos suffer, the more our egos were in control. Yes, this means that everyone's ego will suffer differently, of course on top of this, some ego's will still suffer from it's own suffering through the unwillingness by the ego to let go of it's control. The ego in this case will suffer to the bitter end and quite expectantly in the views of the enlightened.

I should point out that the first line of my post, "What if I stated that if we were all enlightened beings, not one of us would think twice of experiencing this reality again no matter what our experiences were!!", is of my own recollection and awareness. What you become aware of in the absence of a controlling ego is quite amazing. Of course what you become aware of in the absence of an ego altogether would be totally amazing to say the least.

As I ponder about my aimless life wonderings with no intentions or expectations, I realise I am drifting upon a water so clear that my reflection depicts the environment I am adrift upon. In the absence negatives and positives, good and bad, right and wrong, the waters I am adrift upon are so clear.....Mathew G

Emmett Therapy Approach

Written by Mathew Naismith

A young girl was traumatised by a shocking event that occurred to a family, a trauma that sent this young girl into a state of mental isolation and withdrawal. The technique used to help bring this young person out of this state of mental trauma was interesting.

When Emmett approached the young girl, the young girl put her hands on her hips and yelled, "You can't help me." Emmett in return instantly put his hands on his hips and yelled back, "Do you know what a tripod hug is?" The girl then replied, "There is no such thing." Emmett then showed the young girl, of five years old at the time, that tripod hugs do exist from a book Emmett was given on hugs. If Emmett tried to hug this girl or physically treat this girl and not try to reason with this girl on her own level, often deemed too negative to a lot of new age spiritually aware people to go down to, this young girl wouldn't have opened up. In other words stopped suffering from her mental trauma.

Now, try to look at the collective human consciousness as one mind, as one consciousness in obvious severe trauma. If you don't approach this traumatised consciousness on its own level, be it deemed negative or of a lower level than of your own, how is one to truly help this consciousness through it's trauma? Yes, if we ignore all the negatives and lower levels of consciousness apart from our own so-called higher level of consciousness, we will of course deceptively think we are helping this consciousness when were not.

If at any time I approached my disabled clients, often in mental trauma, and tried to preach love and light and /or unconditional love, what do you think would have occurred? Emmett actually instructs his therapists to stay away from using the word love, why? Because the word love can be traumatising to a lot of people, making any therapeutic treatment virtually impossible to successfully implement. Now, how are people of actual hate going to react to love and light and/or unconditional love? In total retaliation. Like Emmett, who had no problem of talking to instead of down to the young girl, talking to a traumatised consciousness in any sense makes a lot more sense than talking down to a consciousness in trauma. Sadly, for a lot of people today trying to help the collective human consciousness in obvious trauma, they are doing a lot more harm than good as the present clearly shows. Yes, they are helping themselves and their own but not the collective consciousness in obvious trauma. Honestly, this approach is actually doing a lot more harm than good only because they obviously have no idea what they are doing.

It would seem, in accordance with my dreams, I have to move aside while the freight train moves by, in a real sense it would seem. In other words get out of the way of the mistreatment of a collective consciousness by another consciousness talking down to the consciousness they say they want to help. If at any time you are talking down to a traumatised consciousness, while perceiving you are of a higher level of consciousness and positive to all else not of your own in any sense, in all honesty, you are adding to the trauma, not helping it. But as my dreams are saying to me, let it all simply unfold, be it that a consciousness has to, at times, learn the hard way, of course this needn't have occurred.                                

                 

https://www.emmett-technique-hq.com/

Journey of an Eastern Mind

Written by Mathew Naismith

A spiritual teacher is asked to do a presentation on what the teacher is about to a small group of people, they accept. When the time comes, they greet everyone who comes through the door and once this is done, they then place themselves in front of the people and immediately queries, "What are you all doing here?" There is no answer because the people are perplexed by the teachers query.

The spiritual teacher then states, "You are here because you did not listen to your eastern mind, a mind of non-materialism, thought, wisdom and non-controlling ways. You are here because of your western minds material imperfections, distractions and controlling ways."

To the spiritual teacher, there is no question of the eastern mind being positive, right, good, etc, and the western mind being negative, wrong, bad, etc. As of always, and quite naturally too to the western mind, there is an obvious positive and negative in relation to the western and eastern mind. Now, why were the people sitting in front of the spiritual teacher to start with, expecting guidance and answers to life?

A predominant western minded person goes into a jungle alive with carnivorous beasties (beasts). Fear will either save this person or cause the death of the person. Now, an enlightened person of the absence of material imperfections, distractions and controlling ways enters the jungle. The carnivorous beasties react in a totally different way. Instead of being ferocious towards the enlightened person, they react playfully and acceptingly. This is actually occurring with certain people at present, where there interactions with wild carnivorous animals are at the point of being playful. You don't have to be enlightened to experience this, just of the absence of material imperfections, distractions and controlling ways.

The spiritual teacher then poses a question," Am I positive because I am the teacher and you are negative because you are the students fixated to material imperfections, distractions and controlling ways? I am not separate from you as I am not separate from creation as a whole. Whatever is of creation, we are of no matter what the western ego mind desires to only be of. The different being, no matter how much we are connected to all of creation, I am also the teacher as well as the student only because I have also learnt to listen to the eastern mind as well as the western mind."

You will notice that certain spiritual teachers will make note to taking control, especially of the mind. If the teacher mentions to the western mind to tame the mind instead of controlling the mind, what is going to occur, especially when the western mind is known to be all about taking control rather than releasing oneself of control?

It is wise when approaching the western mind, to be expressive of what the western mind comprehends to then understand. However, there are teachers who only approach a mind not dominated by the western mind. The mind approached doesn't have to be predominantly eastern but certainly not predominately controlled by the westernised mind. You will never sway a predominant western mind all about control rather than releasing control to comprehend taming the mind to start with, for only the eastern mind in all of us relates to taming the mind rather than controlling the mind. In saying this, at times while trying to influence the western mind to tame the mind, the eastern mind becomes more dominant, this is because the eastern mind, while not being of control but of releasing control, becomes more influential on the mind itself through recognition of taming the mind.

I actually approach the western mind by pointing out the difference between the eastern and western mind, one is of control, the other of taming. The problem with this to the western mind is, honesty is often not the best policy, this is why many teachers will mention taking control of the mind instead of taming the mind. I should point out here that I am not a spiritual teacher.

The spiritual teacher then goes on to express, "As you are different to all else, doesn't mean you are separate to all else. This also means all else not of your positive is negative, just a different expression of yourself. You can deny that the environment around you is not of you but all this proves is that your western mind is in control. Tame the western mind with eastern minded influences, within this, all that seemed to be negative to your own positive dissipates. The western mind loves perceptions of negatives and positives for this gives the western mind more power and control over our mind and our environment, or so is deceptively perceived by the western mind in control over our minds." 

Note: At no time did I read or listen to what is mentioned above in relation to a spiritual teachers presentation, this is wholly my own thoughts of a spiritual teachers starting presentation. 

https://medium.com/sustainability-gender-and-development-in-the/monoculture-of-the-mind-western-superiority-towards-eastern-religions-40093fae581c

Eastern Spiritual Mind

Written  Mathew Naismith

There were two people of different cultures discussing the starvation of people, one person was shocked and appalled by how people are allowed to starve like this, the other person not so shocked and appalled. 

To western thinking, allowing people to starve to death is unkind and certainly not of love or spirituality. To eastern thinking it is different because one existence is not separated from any other existence. So to the western mind it is appalling when humans starve to death but it’s not as appalling when animals, including insects, are starved to death!!

In very recent times, a western minded lady I know was diagnosed with terminal cancer. The eastern doctor sat on her bed, put his hand on her knee and said that she had terminal cancer, go home to die because we need the hospital bed.  The western minded lady was in shock, not just because of the diagnoses but of how she was treated, especially by an eastern minded doctor.

To the eastern spiritual mind, death doesn’t exist; in fact the perception of death is simply an indication of transition from one life to another. No matter what you experience in life, even if you have suffered from life experiences instead of learning from them, all kinds of life experience’s without exception are worthy to experience. One kind of life is not desired over another no matter what, so if your life experience is to starve to death like any living creation without exception, that is karma or simply the way life is or works. So what does the western mind desire to do, change the way existence is but in service to what? Self-gratification, ego.

You see the western mind took offence to the practicality of the eastern mind; your life’s journey is to starve to death, as your life’s path is to die at home from terminal cancer. Of course in the case of the person diagnosed with terminal cancer, the bed was needed for people that doctors can help, not for people who are beyond help!!

In all honesty, if I was diagnosed with terminal cancer, I would want to go home to allow another person the bed that can be helped, and no, I wouldn’t have been offended by the eastern doctor’s very caring practical honest approach. Yes, shock horror to the western mind, the eastern doctor couldn’t have been more caring, practical and honest if he tried. In saying this, the doctor obviously needed to be aware in how the western individualised self-cantered mind works. Of course to the western mind, ensuing known pointless medical treatment is more caring!! This is like feeding an already starving people to bread more so the chances of them starving in the future are higher!! True, this is how western kindness, love and compassion works, in other words how the western mind works. If it feels good, it has to be good even when it obviously isn’t.

So to the western mind, being spiritual has everything to do with feeling good and being good within the views of the western mind, in other words, being positive instead of negative. You know what? The eastern spiritual mind doesn’t separate everything like this between what is negative and what is positive. In truth to me and people like me, the eastern spiritual mind is all about the collective’s wellbeing, not the individual’s wellbeing of; if it feels good to the individual, it has to be good to the collective. In truth, which the western mind in all cultures is not about, this is simply not the case, not everything that feels good to the ego individually is good for the collective.  

In all honesty, the eastern spiritual mind is of the balance of western and eastern thinking. Never expect or even demand that the western spiritual mind thinks like this, this is unless influenced by eastern thinking as well.

I am not of an eastern mind or primarily of an eastern mind but I often balance out the western mind with eastern thinking, as eastern spiritually aware people often do.  

Note; when an eastern spiritual mind feeds a starving person, this is different to when a western spiritual mind feeds a person. It is like the love of an eastern spiritual mind is different to a western spiritual mind; there is no attachment to love of an eastern spiritual mind, when the western mind often becomes highly attached to love. Attachments are likened to control, as the western mind is of taking controlling rather than not being of control. The eastern spiritual mind is actually of releasing oneself of control, also meaning to release oneself from attachments even of love.  How many western spiritually minded people of love can detach themselves from the feelings of what love gives them? In all honesty, this is all about taking control of retaining fixated attachments the western mind will never give up, unless balanced out by the eastern mind of releasing oneself of control and attachments.  

The eastern spiritual mind doesn't have to deal with releasing oneself of control and related attachments because this kind of mind doesn't seek to control but to release oneself of control. There are no attachments even to what the feelings of love can give oneself.

In regards to starving people, there is no difference to starving animals, also, this is there life's journey that we should refrain from taking control of. This is the same with the terminally ill person; refrain from taking control of someone else's life's journey is as loving and caring as a spiritual person can get, but of course the western spiritual mind will understandably always think otherwise through attachments created by being controlling.

Free Will!!

Mathew Naismith

We must remember, non-material evidence, like faith or intuition, is not going to be accepted as evidence of existence by a material consciousness. I often produce material evidence to consciousnesses of materialism, but I have more faith in non-material evidence that is from a consciousness of infinite consciousness, not finite consciousness like material consciousness. However, in a material reality, non-material evidence can become distorted, like our faith or intuition can become overly influenced by materialism.

I have recently been asked to supply evidence or give an example of free will. Giving material evidence to free will is easy. Giving non-material evidence of free will is not easy, not if you want a material mind to comprehend this as evidence.  I did find an interesting article on this which I passed on to the person who asked for evidence of free will.

"Over the years I have revisited this paradox many times. In my mid-twenties I wrote a magazine article entitled “And the Opposite is Also True.”   There I argued that it was not a question of whether free will or determinism was correct. I postulated that they were like two sides of a coin; two very different perspectives of the same reality. From one perspective determinism is true; from the other free will is true. But as to what these two complementary perspectives might be, I wasn’t clear.

Then last year, in one of those moments of insight, it all fell into place. I realized that the two fundamentally different perspectives stemmed from two fundamentally different states of consciousness."

Two fundamentally different states of consciousness, not one. One consciousness driven by ego (motion), the other by egoless (motionless) but all the same, still of consciousness. You cannot define that there is no free will by deriving at this fact while only considering one type of consciousness, a consciousness of motion (soul) as opposed to motionless, a consciousness in the absence of a soul to start with.  

"They find that what we take to be a sense of an omnipresent “I” is simply consciousness itself. There is no separate experiencer; there is simply a quality of being, a sense of presence, an awareness that is always there whatever our experience. They conclude that what we experience to be an independent self is a construct in the mind—very real in its appearance but of no intrinsic substance. It, like the choices it appears to make, is a consequence of processes in the brain. It has no free will of its own."

There is no separate experiencer which gives us the perception there is no free will, however, when many consciousnesses become one, which creates a state of motionlessness, free will is evident. You probably need to experience this to know this. This is like giving birth, how many blokes exactly know what it is like giving birth? When you have not yourself experienced a motionless state, you will of course never know or even want to know that this state is of free will.

"Free will and determinism are no longer paradoxical in the sense of being mutually exclusive. Both are correct, depending upon the consciousness from which they are considered. The paradox only appears when we consider both sides from the same state of consciousness, i.e, the everyday waking state."

"I remember hearing a statement Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said something like: ” We can choose whatever we like, eg plant an orange seed or an apple seed, but once the choice is made, the result is already determined by that choice”. This to me resolved the paradox and made both sides compatible as you suggested."

Source: https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/the-paradox-of-free-will/

Try to understand free will though; your environment often determines your actions. In saying this, you are often a reflection of your environment, an environment of your choice or a choice of another within your environment!!