Showing posts with label Buddha. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buddha. Show all posts

Thursday, 29 August 2019

Helping Each Other, As a Collective

Written by Mathew Naismith

I can think of no great wise and aware soul in human history that simply sat within their own safe havens and let things occur around them, in actuality the opposite occurred. I think Buddha and Jesus in the west are prime examples of this, even though Jesus and Buddha are of eastern origin. Look within your own culture honestly and you will see that no great wise and aware soul simply sat in their own safe havens.

Are we waiting for some great saviour to save us again, or, sit within our own safe havens of love, light and positiveness while completely ignoring the obvious? The true wise and aware are not waiting for a saviour or simply sit within their own safe havens to stay positive, they observe what is often deemed negative in a completely different way. People like me don't look at our present environment as being separate to ourselves, or simply negative therefore something to avoid, we see it as simply something like a consciousness lost within its own creation.

Hate groups are formed by participating in the separation of energy, for example, positive from negative, black from white. Within the participation of such separation, hate, ostracising, disdain, etc, are naturally created, however, through the observation of energy a union of energy occurs, not a separation. The reason for this lies in that when one is participating in relation to energy, a desired outcome is proffered. When in observation of energy, even when observing your own participation, you become more honestly truthful in relation to energy. If all you are doing is ignoring the negatives to become positive, this is not a sign of observation but purely of participation in the absence of any true observation, in all honest truth. And in all honesty, participation in the absence of unbiased observation is of desired truths, not honest truths.

So what have we created or manifested sitting within our own personal safe havens today? This is while we are still looking at negatives as something separate to ourselves, and of course something to be ignored and scorned.  Will we ever start learning from our past instead of suffering from it!!

At present, I am unable to blog a post about exposing hate groups. Yes, I can create a blog but the blog is virtually invisible as it is deemed to be hatful. As I don't know when honest truth become disdainful, I don't know when awareness become hatful!!

Now, if you are abused by a hatful group of people, even if it's Nazis, you can't talk about it on the net because it is deemed hatful to Nazis. So if you now want to talk about the atrocities of the Nazis during WWII, it will now have to be deemed to be hatful by the present regime trying to control the whole world. However, this is while the same exact regime, not just allows but supports another well known hate group dominating another people, the Palestinians, they distastefully hate with a vengeance. Imagine for a moment being invaded by a people who notably hate you with a vengeance. Yes, but this is alright as long as we are safe, right!!

So in our safe havens we are manifesting for a better existence, while it is obvious this kind of manifesting is creating a monster. No wise and aware consciousness is going to help another consciousness that has no intentions in helping itself, in truth, quite the opposite, what would be the point?

The great wise and aware of human history have shown us how to interact with energy, either it be negative and positive, black and white, not negative or positive, black or white. What have we chosen to do instead? Manifest a monster, a regime that will control everything we are, in service to its own desires, not to the real needs of the collective.

Make no mistake, like Buddha and Jesus who didn't just sit within their own personal safe havens, you too can be within any environment and stay true to yourself and in complete harmony. Just because you are involved, doesn't mean you become what you are involved in. It has everything to do with the way you interact and use energy. By just sitting their within your own personal love, light and positiveness, is an abuse of energy by manifesting a monster that is simply about its own desires. Of course if these desires coincide with your own, to serve the desires of a few, all the better for you but not the collective.

We are conditioned at present to separate one from the other to serve our own personal desires, but we can also condition ourselves to unite energy as a whole to serve the collective, the choice is indeed ours. No great wise and aware soul will try to help us if we don't start honestly and truthfully helping ourselves. To manifest such a monster is not a sign we are trying to help ourselves, especially when we are completely ignoring the truly wise and aware of our time in how to interact with energy as a whole, not in parts.

So why do people like me try to help the collective, if the truly wise and aware won't help us until we begin to help ourselves?  In relation to wisdom and awareness, people like me are average, in other words probably more of a participator than an observer of energy, which is obviously our choice also.........    

Thursday, 12 November 2015

Personal Love v Collective Love

Written by Mathew Naismith

Collective Love: We confuse ourselves so often between these two very different forms of love, at times personal love is confused as being unconditional but of course once tested, this so called unconditional love has conditions. Collective love is the only true form of unconditional love, this is because no matter where this love finds itself, it's still unconditional, this isn't the same with personal love. I should also say here you can also personally love and unconditionally love in the same exact moment, I will explain about this a little latter on.

If we looked at people like Jesus for instance, did Jesus, while hanging on the cross, instantly unloved he's detractors, the people who persecuted him?  No, for a very simple reason, he truly did unconditionally love. What does it take for people today to seemingly unconditionally? They have to be in the environment of their own choosing, any discord or chaotic behaviour detracts away from this collective love. Ostracising or personally attacking people when in an environment not of your own personal liking, is showing that this kind of love does indeed have conditions, there is no true collective love in this. To me, people like Jesus and Buddha showed us how to truly love no matter what environment you are in.        

Now a lot of people believe we shouldn't dwell in the past as it's all about the present, I totally agree with this in sense, it matters not if we are thinking about the past or the future, it's still in the present, the delusion is thinking there is a past and future to dwell on. Any person of the so called past that is of wisdom, which we obviously lack today, is very much of the present for me.

Personal Love: A truly unconditionally loving person should be able to go on any part of the net, for example, and feel unconditionally loving, most of the times however we have conditions which obviously isn't a true form of unconditional love. As soon as we ostracise people and/or attack them in any way, we are expressing the conditions we have in regards to our love!!

I believe it's wise at this point to become aware of the difference between these two forms of love.

Personal love = a controlling ego + conditions + judgmental + control period

Collective love = ego + no conditions + in judgment through observation + awareness

Jesus made an observation that he's detractors where obviously highly destructive, this however didn't take away he's love of he's detractors, however, this is where personal love comes into it, did Jesus have personal love for he's detractors? The answer would be no because personal love is always in judgment of conditions, this however didn't stop Jesus unconditionally loving.

If you noticed I related personal love to control and the collective love to awareness, this difference alone makes a huge difference to the way we express our love either conditionally or unconditionally.

To take control of anything we first need to be judgmental, you can't control anything if you are unaware of what to control unless you are in judgement, in other words  to control anything takes one to be judgmental. Judgement actually gives us awareness  but an awareness that has conditions, being judgmental actually makes us more of a participator rather than an observer. I don't think any truly wise person isn't an observer of some kind, you can't be an observer if you are judgmental, only in judgment of what you observe.

Through our observations we become aware even when in judgement because all you are judging is an obvious difference, you aren't personally judging a right or wrong, just a difference in the way we conduct ourselves either constructively or destructively. I can't think of any true wise person who tried to control a situation, all they did was influence a situation by being just plainly aware of the situation.

The Right Environment!!: Many of us today have a desire, or a presumed need, to put ourselves in the right environment to be able to express our love, if we need to be in the right environment to do this in the first place, our love in the first place has conditions. If you are truly unconditionally loving, you should be able to put yourself into any situation no matter how in discord a situation is and still express unconditional love. This very rarely happens even with those who believe they are unconditionally loving.

The reason this happens is simple, we include personal love within our unconditional love when personal love is all about a controlling ego and being in judgement, this of course will counteract any unconditional love we might have, however!!

I stated in the first paragraph of this post that we can express personal love and unconditional love in the same exact moment, how would this be possible? Once again this is simple, we can only be expressive of a true form of unconditional love if our unconditional love is the main influence. Once our personal love becomes the main influence, we lose any true expression of unconditional love, this is wholly due to a controlling ego.

Let's look at some real life examples, how unconditional can a mothers love be? Now this kind of unconditional love doesn't exclude personal love, however, this personal love doesn't detract away from the mothers unconditional love of their child either. You see in this case unconditional love is the main influence, not personal love, in this case the child can become totally destructive but still  loved by their mother, this is a true form of unconditional love.

In Australia, 52% of married couples end up divorced, the only reason this would occur is they had conditions on their love for each other in the first place, if these couples unconditionally loved each other in the first place, the 52% divorce rate wouldn't exist. Don't get me wrong here, if a person is being abused in any sense of the word, they shouldn't stay with such people because they have no conditions for their love for the abuser. Any abuse denotes conditions brought on by control to start with, try to avoid anyone who is controlling, their love will never be unconditional until they stop being controlling.

I personally can't say I love a lot of people but I do collectively love all the people, this might seem superficial to a lot of people, how can I have a love of all of the people but only personally love a few? Once again this is simple, unconditional love takes a lot of awareness and understanding, you can't obtain this kind of awareness and understanding if you are hiding in your little safe haven that makes you feel good all the times. When you look at Buddha and Jesus for instance, did they stay within their safe haven? No, both of them went out and put themselves in anything else but a safe haven, it was certainly a huge test of their unconditional collective love.

Don't just sit within your safe haven that makes you feel good for all this will do is produce a personal love that has very little substance or creed, get away from your security blanket for all that is secure is controlling!!

I'm certainly aware of why certain people want to ignore the wisdom in the so called past, it's way too illuminating. Don't allow your controlling ego to influence you in ignoring the greatest wisdom we have in the world, yes involve but evolve from this, don't ignore this wisdom altogether for all this will create is an unilluminating reality they has nowhere to evolve from.           

Wednesday, 11 November 2015

How Truly Blessed Are We?

Written by Mathew Naismith

In my mind we couldn't be more blessed if we tried, all we need to do to become aware of how blessed we are is to observe how truly blessed we are, this act alone will bring a peace on earth that will be beyond most people's comprehension. I will explain this by firstly sharing a reply I received in regards to my last post.     

It will never cease to amaze me - just how far my ego will go to distract me from my priorities..

My Reply
Utterly, you can't be meek and mild, this however doesn't mean we can't be beautiful and passively peaceful within our mentality and behaviour. 

I think Jesus and Buddha in particular  are very good examples of this, how controlling were they? They weren't controlling therefore of the ego, they were however aware and wise, this is one of the reasons why I advocate awareness and wisdom over and above control. For example, as soon as the churches became controlling, they lost what these people were trying to teach in my mind.

I don't get it, we are only relating our meekness/timidness to a beautiful and passive peaceful existence and mentality, to feel this beauty and a passive peacefulness, we have to be meek/timid, this also means, to create a more harmonious existence, we have to become meek. I'm wondering, how many people think this but also think at the same time we have to take control especially over ourselves which doesn't include a lot of our desires/lusts strangely enough? I've come across this quite a lot.....

Meek but firm: You can be meek/timid at the same time being firm and rigid, especially in relation to the controlling ego. Dispelling the ego takes, at times, a lot of firmness within oneself, this doesn't mean you are no longer meek/timid. It's also interesting why I use the word dispelling, it means to firmly disperse, was Buddha timid when faced with his controlling ego? He was firm within his resolutions but timid within his expressions. Jesus and Buddha are prime examples of expressing a firmness and at the same time being timid within this expression, in other words they had to be very assertive but at the same time being timid within this assertiveness.

How many people who are primarily expressive of love are firm within their assertiveness of this love? Most of these people would advocate that they are not firmly assertive but they would be quite incorrect within this perception, to themselves, they just come across as being timid within their nature. Try talking about hate or a another subject they find distasteful, you won't get to far with this, the reason for this is they are very firm and assertive of their own views and vibrations. It is obvious you can be firmly assertive and at the same moment be meek/timid within our whole being.  

Control: There is however quite a huge difference between people like Jesus and Buddha and people who just want to be meek/timid. People like Jesus, Buddha, Rumi, Confucius, used awareness and wisdom to dispel the controlling ego not control it. You might think it took a huge amount of control for Buddha to become enlightened, he had to dispel he's controlling ego within it's entirety, this is no small feat to anyone fixated to the controlling ego in any sense. Buddha did try at first to control he's controlling ego tendencies, it however wasn't happening for him though. The reason it wasn't happening was due to that  he was trying to control the ego within by taking away all he's Earthly desires and even he's needs, this however all changed when he started to observe himself I believe instead of just being a participator.

Trying to control our egoistic tendencies is being a participator and a participator to the ego.  When Buddha observed himself, he saw this, what he did then was simple, he let go of being a participator to the ego. You see it was the ego still in control as it was the ego in the first place that influenced him to try to control the ego within himself, he observed that he was just as expressive of the ego as ever, this was until he observed himself I believe. Once he observed himself, he became aware and wise within his expressions and being which is all that is needed to dispel the controlling ego. When you are truly aware in how destructive and disruptive a controlling ego can be, you wisely dispel such expressions, you realise all what these expressions will create is chaos, destruction and disharmony. What truly wise person would create such a reality to begin with? To be able to create such a reality takes a lot of controlling ways and very little wisdom and awareness.

Now Jesus was a little different in the way he became enlightened, he didn't start off with trying to control the controlling  ego, this I believe was due to his humble beginnings unlike Buddha who was born into luxury and prestige. Buddha actually had a lot more to contented with in relation to the controlling ego within himself. It's funny to think that Jesus was actually a lot luckier than Buddha, he was already humbled where Buddha still needed to be humbled.  

It's really amazing that these two quite different transformation still ended up at the same point of enlightenment and mentality, within this difference alone we have a lot to learn from, we couldn't be more blessed in my mind.

To be honest, what I have written here came through me, in other words what is primarily written here was just channelled through to me, please don't take it as being gospel in any sense.  

Saturday, 12 July 2014

Saviours and Prophets, our Psycho Therapists

Written by Mathew Naismith

I love it when I’m enlightened by others, it allows me to think past my known and unknown boundaries.

While in discussion with another person about my last post titled, Overcoming a Collective Trauma, it was suggested that saviours like Buddha are, what we would deem in the modern age, psycho therapists but on a collective scale.  When you think on this, these people (therapists) taught us how to forgive and be accepting of others thus helping us to release any said trauma at the personal and collective level.  Now the way I look at the collective is as one consciousness so if it’s one consciousness it’s one mind. If this one mind, on the collective scale, is traumatised by past deeds it will react accordingly to the said trauma just like an individual would.  

These traumas on the collective scale can be something like the Dark Ages or famine for example. All these traumas at the collective scale can scar us at the individual level even though these traumas happened some hundreds or even thousands of years before commencing our present life. This is usually done through various ideological beliefs and disbeliefs at the collective level. If our present belief or ideological principle was traumatised in past human history, we tend to take that trauma on as well most often unbeknownst to us.   This of course isn’t the only way we take on this collective past trauma, just like our human selves, I believe the collective has a subconscious and within this subconscious lies these traumas from years ago in human history. This seems farfetched until I remember the saying, “what is above is also below”.  

The strange thing is we, at the individual level, don’t see ourselves, our body and mind, as a collective in our own right, we don’t see ourselves as made up of individual vibrational frequencies  which make us who we are. This is no different to the collective at the human scale, the collective is made up of various vibrational frequencies in a collective form, human and other animal species are a good example of this. When we look beyond the human collective we see ourselves being a part of an even bigger collective, various vibrational frequencies existing in one form or another.  The point is, we are never really an individual entity, we are a part of the collective no matter how you look at it so our traumas are a part of the collective either it be conscious or subconscious trauma.

These days we don’t have a physically alive saviour or prophet as such, we have people like gurus, pops or some other saviour like Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra but we don’t have a saviour or a psycho therapist at the level of Buddha or Jesus for example.  What was given to us however was their teachings which we usually carried through in various religious and spiritual rituals like praying, meditating, chanting and so on.  Science has proven all these rituals are psychologically beneficial by no mistake because these rituals are meant to psychologically ease our traumas at the collective and individual level.  Our minds react quite differently when practicing in these rituals to everyday life easing our traumas which of course are all ego based. Knowing that these traumas are ego based helps us to release such traumas, traumas just can’t exist without a controlling ego controlling us.

We may not have an actual living psycho therapist like Jesus or Buddha but we do have their teachings which were supposed to help guide us to our own salvation from such traumas. Why hasn’t this worked at the collective level? We just didn’t take note of these psychotherapy teachers in how they actually lived without an ego being in control; we just allowed the ego to take control giving ourselves more traumas to contend with not less……

Note: I apologise if I have offended anyone calling saviours and prophets psychotherapy teachers, to me personally, calling these people psychotherapy teachers is a huge reassurance to me, it allows me to understand them better in my own way…….

Saturday, 6 July 2013

True Acceptance-Conflictive?

Written by Mathew Naismith

"If you try to accept, that simply means a kind of repression. First you must have rejected; you must be still rejecting and you are covering up your rejection with acceptance. I don’t accept life because I don’t reject it in the first place. It is simply there, neither rejected or accepted. It is so. Buddha calls it tathata, suchness. True acceptance is not an acceptance at all. True acceptance is absence of rejection and acceptance. One simply knows that this is how things are -- the suchness of things, tathata."


G’day Joel……One should never try to accept but be automatically accepting however everyone in this reality including Osho & Buddha have rejected their previous reality to be within this one to say such things otherwise they wouldn’t have been here, rejection like change is inevitable.  For change to take effect one must always reject one’s present moment otherwise change can’t ever possibly take effect including being in realities like this one.

Once one reaches a certain state of consciousness acceptance becomes automatic but before this state is reached one should try to be understanding in one’s non-acceptance not try to be accepting of one’s misunderstandings.  Being truly accepting doesn’t mean one has to have an opposing polarity it just means you haven’t got an opposing polarity like rejection.


Looking at the quote, this quote at first made sense which made my blog on acceptance conflictive however one doesn’t always have to have an opposing polarity plus I preach acceptance through understanding of our misunderstandings & after we have done this there is no more rejection or conflict it’s just pure acceptance. Acceptance really comes down to our understandings & once we understand we automatically have no rejection but become automatically accepting through having no opposing polarity.

As I said in my reply, we have had to have all rejected our present form before coming to a reality like this one & only through rejection of our present conscious state can we make changes so in actual fact this quote doesn’t make sense at all as only through diversity which denotes change can we consciously expand.  This quote is actually talking about a being or energy source that has never experienced change & if it has never experienced change it couldn’t be very consciously expansive/aware in the first place however it could also be from an energy form who is very consciously expansive which doesn’t need diversity any longer to learn from however it still makes this quote null & void as none of us are at that conscious state of awareness in this reality & even if we were we wouldn’t need to be told this in the first place because we would automatically already know this.

We obviously learn from accepting & rejecting which denotes diversity & that is a very positive thing not a negative thing in realities like this one which this quote is trying to make out, it is not suited to this reality or any other reality like this one.  This quote was obviously written in a conscious state that is far beyond our consciousness, why present such a quote in this consciousness or any other consciousness like this one has got me!!