We Know Not What We Do

Written by Mathew Naismith

These kinds of things simply come to me without exerting any effort; it's simple because there is no effort involved. I think the people who experience this as well will know exactly what I mean; it flows because you are going with the flow.

I don't always go with the flow; this is because I accept that being a part of a reality like ours, going against the flow is a part of this reality. However as of always, balance between going with the flow and against it is always a wise thing to do; everything in moderation no matter how good or right it feels.

The whole self = Our natural flow

Part of the whole self, our present reality = A flow that goes against the natural flow

A thing to consider here, is going against the flow of a reality that goes against the natural flow going against the flow of that reality? Yes, this reality is a tiny part of who we are as a whole, the whole self is of a natural flow, are not realities that are of going against this natural flow also of this natural flow?

How we think is one is against the other; if it's against the natural flow, it's in opposition to the flow. In the whole scheme of existence, there is no opposition as it's all a part of the same natural flow no matter how small that flow might be. Our present reality is a small part of the natural flow even when going against the natural flow of life. Is a fish swimming against the flow of water; not of the natural flow of the life of the water; when the fish goes against the flow of water? Are we not the fish within the water, within a particular reality like the fish!!

We simply don't think like the fish, we think more like a rock when going against the flow, in opposition to the flow. Instead of allowing ourselves to go with the flow, we are like a rock trying to swim like a fish in opposition the flow when acting/thinking like a rock. It's unnatural for a rock to go against the flow like this; we have simply forgotten we are the fish when swimming against the flow, not the rock.

The rock is in opposition when going against the flow, the fish isn't, which reality do we want to experience, the fish or the rocks reality? If it's the fish, we can go against the flow without being in opposition to the flow, if the rock, we must go with the flow at all times otherwise we are in opposition to the natural flow.

What occurred recently is I experienced a glimpse of what we are doing to ourselves. By being the rock while in opposition to its environment, mainly because we desire control of this environment to feed our desires, we have become the rock in opposition to the natural flow of life. A rock going against its environment will be destructive and disruptive to its environment; the natural flow of life, what the rock going against the flow isn't aware of is it's simply hurting itself immensely by doing so.

Being the rock in opposition to its own environment is going to lead to what it's always lead to, its own destruction. Of course any energy source in opposition to its own environment causing its own demise is a part of the natural flow of life also. If we are going to continually act like a rock going against the flow, we will naturally cause our own demise, however, if we choose to be a rock going with the flow or become the fish instead, we will be naturally going with the flow of life.

I chose to be the fish swimming against the flow at times, other people have chosen to be a rock going with the flow and many more people have chosen to be the rock in opposition to the flow. No matter what we choose to be it's all a part of the natural flow of life, it's just everything we choose to be has its own journey to ride out. Yes, the outcome of each journey is different but it still finishes up being a part of the natural flow of life no matter what journey we choose to follow.

It simply came to me, if we really knew what we do, we simply wouldn't do it; we simply wouldn't be the rock in opposition to the natural flow of life. How aware is the rock to its environment compared to the fish? We simply need stop being the rock in opposition, stop thinking in opposition like positive and negative being in opposition to each other all the times for only a rock in opposition to the flow can think like this.

Is a fish going against the flow judging the water negative while swimming against it?  Only a rock going in opposition to the flow could think like this.......

Optimism - An Optimum State

Written by Mathew Naismith

Why would I state that optimism is an optimum state? We might think that optimism is a positive mental state to be in, within this perception it's the most favourable and most rewarding state to be in. I actually don't concur (agree) with this on the grounds that optimism is a positive attribute or state of mind, however, optimism is highly constructive without having to be perceived as a positive.

Optimism looks upon human consciousness holistically, this means that optimism looks upon human consciousness in conjunction with the rest of existence. Basically, human consciousness isn't separated from the environment it's a part of where's pessimism separates everything.

Human consciousness can be highly destructive and violent, when taken in reference to the environment that human consciousness exists in, human consciousness is mild within its destructiveness and violence. A good example of this is the sun, being that the sun is one of the most violent destructive energy sources in the universe, not the most destructive and violent though. It's interesting how an optimist and a pessimist perceive the environment as I will explain.  

Definitions:

                     Optimism; Hopefulness and confidence about the future or the success of something

                     Pessimism; A general disposition to look on the dark side and to expect the worst in all things 

                     Optimum; The best, most favourable or desirable, especially under some restriction

Optimism creates rationality, a sound sense of reasoning, by confidently making reverence to its whole environment in the hope to understand it's own positioning within its existence. This is done without discounting any part of the environment for what ever reason, being it either a positive or negative perception of its environment.

Optimism takes in consideration of both negative and positive reflections, most always looking at the negatives in a favourable way or in reference to other perceived negatives. Reverence isn't made in comparison but in conjunction with. A good example of this is judging human consciousness highly negative and even toxic while excluding making reference to the rest of the environment like the sun.

The point is that optimism doesn't perceive that negatives are simply bad while at the same time making exclusions to these perceived negatives. Optimism optimistically, favourably, looks at everything with the same light, in the same value, void of separation. Perceiving that everything not of my own vibrations, my own reality, is negative or that certain forms of human consciousness are plainly negative and even toxic, is a sign of pessimism, not optimism. Pessimism irrationally looks at certain forms of human consciousness as being negative therefore bad void of making reference to the rest of the environment.

So why isn't optimism of a positive state of mind?

A positive state of mind only takes in and considers the positives while excluding what are perceived to be negative, only the positives of existence are acknowledge. You can't be of a positive mind while including the negatives, the negative state of mind or existence. The negative mind works in the same way by excluding the positives otherwise it's not of a true negative mind.

A mind set to negative or positive thinking creates a state of pessimism, all else not of its own vibrations is excluded. This sounds awfully too familiar today. To a negative mind, the positive mind is highly negative and visa-versa, this is not the same with a balanced mind because a balanced mind creates a state of optimism. Everything is seen in a favourable way through the acceptance of the whole environment the way it is, not just accepting parts of the environment we desire to be of.

Optimism is simply the middle ground between our created and perceived negatives and positives. Let's be honest here, perceptions of negatives and positives are simply perceptions, a creation brought about in the way we perceive either that be optimistically or pessimistically.

Pessimism is of both negative and positives perceptions; pessimism needs an opposing opposite to exist thus we have perceptions and creation of negatives and positives. All of a sudden numerous people are judged as being toxic, excessively negative, how optimistic is this especially in regards to what is being so critically judged and ostracised, not included? To even look at yourself as being of some kind of higher value than judged negatives is quite a dark way to exist. 

You could say that optimism is of both negative and positive energy sources working in balance, the thing is the union of negatives and positives in perfect balance negate or neutralise each other. They work as one void of separation as in the perceptions of negatives and positives.

Is it positive and optimistic to refute an obvious occurrence because it's negative? Optimism looks at the negative occurrence and tries to make the best of it, pessimism simply ignores the obvious. You can see how a true state of optimism creates a state of rationality and pessimism creates a state of irrationality. One takes in consideration of the whole picture while the other only takes in what it desires to be of, the small picture.

I really hope I have explained this better, an optimistic view........ 

The Question of Optimism and Pessimism

Written by Mathew Naismith

I was going to post this post as is below; I had an urge the next day to explain myself better.

People like me try to express balance and moderation to other people within all motions, even of the motions that makes us feel good as all motions create a counter-reaction; this is cause and effect, action reaction. It is obvious that any consciousness of an extreme is going to judge people like me negative, of course all this shows is that balance and moderation is needed in their lives. Not everything not of our own vibrations or environment is negative. I find it strange that balance, moderation and the truth in how it actually is has become simply negative these days to a lot of people.    

I completely understand why positive thinking is the new popular way of thinking, it either gets us away from what we have critically judged as negative and/or it allows us to excel or gain some kind of wealth. It can be any kind of wealth that feeds the ego, for example, anything that makes us feel good in a negative world. If it feels good it has to be good is the egos motto, the more the better of course.

As the following will explain, there is a difference between an irrational optimist and a rational optimist. An optimist is a person who is disposed to take a favourable view of things. Optimism is often mistakenly perceived as being positive, of course I wouldn't say that irrational optimism is exactly a positive, in actuality it can be excessively destructive. Optimism will also see that certain perceived negatives are actually very positive, irrational optimists won't even consider that a judged negative could actually be a positive in the first place.

Optimism is the middle ground between positive and negative thinking, it's what gives everything a balanced perspective and a perspective that is usually unbiased. Optimism is neutral territory to negative and positive thinking where pessimism is of one or the other or of both. You could relate irrational pessimism to negative thinking and rational pessimism to positive thinking. Giving that positive thinking people most often judged more things within their environment as being negative, you can see why this kind of thinking process is actually of pessimism, not optimism. It has to be of one or the other for a pessimist where the optimist it's neither one nor the other; everything is seen in a favourable view in some way no matter how negative or unfavourable it is to the pessimist. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-happiness-advantage/201103/are-you-irrational-optimist

Extract: First, "you're being an optimist" should not be an insult. What we should be saying is "you're an irrational optimist!" We are trying to say that person has a warped vision of reality, which is based on desire, not how things actually are.

Good point, irrational optimism is linked to desires where rational optimism isn't linked to desire, being that desire is often seen as an irrational expression. To ignore or have disdain for anything judged as negative is an irrational response, especially when the judged negative is only negative because it's not of our own vibrations, our own reality.

It is wise to be aware that an irrational optimist will often critically judged what's not of their environment as being negative. On the other hand, a rational optimist will only see a difference void of judging a deference, especially in comparison to their own environment.

In regards to my last post, A State of Mind and Being, I was labelled negative because of my negative vibrations. If at any time I was as negative as positive people try to label me to be, I simply wouldn't be still around or I would have simply crashed and burnt psychologically, become too mentally unstable to express rational optimism. I am not the one judging everything not of my own environment negative, these so-called self-proclaimed positive people are!!

You will feel what you perceive, so if you perceive that someone is negative, you will indeed feel negative vibrations, the funny thing is, it's usually the positive person who is creating these negative vibrations to start with. 

_________________________

          

Reply

When did having a discussion while expressing different views become negative? When did constructive debate become negative? When did people with different vibrations than ours become negative?

We are noticeably becoming less accepting, not more accepting, becoming less balanced not more balanced which infers we are actually lowering our vibrations not raising them. Is this why the world is getting worse not better?

There are more perceived negatives out there today than ever, only because we have created them. Oneness is all about being more accepting not less Christine. We have become far less accepting than ever which infers separation not oneness.

Reply

Please, go away, this is becoming Very Creepy.
And quite frankly your "negative" vibes are starting to grind. Have a good day.

My Reply

WOW, this is my post and I am the one who is supposed to go away because of my negativity. This is the mentality that positive thinking creates Christine, when did the truth become negative?

Christine, it is obvious you are into positive thinking which I have shown in my post leads to irrational optimism, you have clearly shown this here. You can release yourself from this state of mind Christine but you have got to want to do this. If you desire to continually critically label everything else not of your own vibrations as negative or even toxic, so be it.

I sincerely hope the best for people like you Christine. Be well and blessed.          

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!!......... 

What Is a True Sense of Love?

Written by Mathew Naismith

We are certainly going to have a different perspective on this, giving that each of us are conditioned to a certain way of perceiving in our own way.

A true sense of love to me is a love with fewer conditions attached, not more. A good example of this is relationships, why do some relationships work and others don't?

It all comes down to the conditions we attach to the love within a relationship. In observation of a loving relationship, you will observe that fewer conditions are attached, for example, how many positives and negatives are expressed or even observed? Each perception of negative and positive, bad and good, wrong and right, etc, add more conditions to the love, of course the love, the relationship, in the end will fail if too many conditions are attached.

Through new age spirituality, how many negative and positive, bad and good, wrong and right, etc, are expressed, even the word toxic has become a common phrase. These perceptions are putting more conditions on our love, not less, so how true is this kind of love really?

I was recently on the receiving end of this kind of love that had insurmountable amounts of conditions attached to their love. Just because we create our own reality, our own vibrations that we are comfortable with, doesn't make all other realities (vibrations) negative or positive but this is exactly what is occurring?

If you desire it or not, we are all a part of the collective consciousness, it's wise to moderate the conditions we put upon this relationship. Of course to desire to have to feel all warm and fluffy to express love is but another condition; this in turn creates anything but a true sense of love!! Did Mother Teresa and Florence Nightingale always feel warm and fluffy? Their love had nothing to do with the desire to feel all warm and fluffy......themselves.

Participate in love by all means, but observe your own participation to make sure you are not putting more conditions on your love.     

A True Sense of Love!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

There is a lot of reference to God in my following replies that I gave to another person recently, a person who approached me with there own ideas of what a true sense of love is.

God is in reference to oneness and unconditional love, it represents the whole self as opposed to man's separateness of the self from others and the environment man doesn't desire to be of. Yes, we can create our own reality separate from the collective conscious reality, however, at no point within our own desired reality are we ever separate from the collective consciousness.

We certainly have a different perception of love, this perception will create the reality we personally create. This perceptional reality we create isn't for everyone; it's wise to be aware of this while expressing one's own reality.

If you don't feel like reading through all the comments by me here, I recommend reading the last comment, it sort of explains everything, however, there are a few good points made by me in reference to the other replies by me like, "Love is acquired, not desired......."   

 _______________________________

Reply 1

Well my friend, what can I say.......

What you have written here very few people will comprehend Nagual, what you are unable to comprehend, you certainly won't understand.

In relation to my wife and I; if my wife found more happiness in someone else, would my love for my wife be happy for my wife or sad?

Desire dictates sadness and even bitterness, this is not me or my wife for it is not about our desires but the happiness of other people we truly love. Desire always dictates otherwise. 

Not many people truly comprehend the true sense of love, if they are unable to comprehend a true sense of  love, how are they then able to understand a true sense of love?

What did Jesus do? There was no desire, it was simply a true sense of love otherwise he wouldn't have sacrificed himself for of what he loved. Actually, he's actions were not sacrificial at all; it was pure love, not easy for us to even comprehend in regards to our present conditioning to desires above all else.

I am not religious myself but I often make reference to God and even the holey trinity, to a lot of people's discussed sadly enough. I am simply not inhibited by such a limited consciousness.

Be Always Blessed,

Mathew 

Reply 2

In my mind it should have something to do with relationships, in actuality human consciousness as a whole. To separate one from the other isn't of God but of man.

Love of another shouldn't be based on desire but of God, yes, desire to be with another but not of love of another. If I was not to love my wife as God, my love would simply be of a desire. How many people desire to feel love? This is simply desire Nagual and of man, not of God.

Love is acquired, not desired.......

_______________________________

I added the following in ( ) to a post that was presented to me in regards to the following. A true sense of love doesn't separate one from the other, a true love through God, a sense of oneness, is to not separate but to unite.    

 _______________________________

 Reply 3

I love you for your bright ideas (and your dull ideas)
I love you for your Good energy (and your bad energy)
I love you for your pure intentions (and your impure intentions)
I love you for your wise decisions (and your unwise decisions)
I love you for your righteousness (and your unrighteousness)
I love you for your beliefs (and your disbeliefs)
I love you for your endless smile (and your frown)
I love you for the help you offer to the world (and the help you don't give to the world)
I love you too because through you

I see all my beauty too (and my ugliness as well)

Reply 4

It's not good stating so often do you understand now, too evangelistic like for me. My advice is to not put yourself so much above everybody else.

I worked in the welfare arena twice over in my life, do you understand now? I've given myself while under a huge amount of trauma.   

I'm simply not into creating a Goddess out of love, love is not the be and end all and should never be treated as such in my mind. Try truly loving void of truly accepting. If you can only accept love, this is anything but unconditional love or acceptance.

If your acceptance has conditions, so does your love Nagual, it's this simple.......

Reply 5

I think so much and analyse!! You have no idea Nagual, so much just comes through me not from me.

Within your reply here, you are putting yourself above me, this is too obvious, no thought necessary in this.

I spoke with an 84 year old Yoga teacher tonight, if you have to feel love to express love, you have conditions of your love to have to feel love. It's simply a desire, not of God's unconditional love.

Try expressing love void of having to feel love. I have been expressing this kind of love most of my life, not just a few years as of yourself as you have depicted.

How many people predominantly have to feel love to express love? This kind of love has insurmountable conditions as it's based on desiring to feel love over and above expressing love.

Reply 6

Very well articulated Kim. 

I worked with disabled people, they often don't have bright ideas, so called good energy, pure intentions, wise in decision and so on it goes. I also look at multinationals as disabled for they know not what they do. These people were excluded in this post, all I was doing is including them, in actuality they need more of our love and acknowledgment, not less and certainly not excluded because of conditions of positive or negative energy.

The conditions of love are of so called positive energy, everything else is often excluded as of this post sadly enough. Yes, the post is a nice gesture but the gestures are of insurmountable conditions.

If you are going to make reference to God, you must also be making reference to unconditional love, this often doesn't occur.

If the conditions are of having to love oneself to understand love, you have conditions, this is obviously not of unconditional love Kim. What if there is no reason to love oneself, no need of it!! The question of loving oneself or not in relation to unconditional love has no relevance; it simply does not come into question, as soon as it does, you create conditions.

What I am trying to say here isn't easy to comprehend; if it's incomprehensible, it's certainly not going to be understood.

Love yes, but without the insurmountable conditions that new age spirituality put upon love.    

_______________________________

The discussion didn't end up well; I ended up being referred to as just he and this is from so-called very loving people. Use people's names when in discussion, it's a simple sign of respect. I ended the discussion with the following. 

"Where has the real love gone? To people like me, it's disheartening, I suppose it's the way of the wind......"