Showing posts with label Buddhism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buddhism. Show all posts

Wednesday 5 December 2018

Unlimiting Consciousness





 Written by Mathew Naismith

I was asked recently about my thoughts on Buddhism, the following was my reply.  

There are different variants of Buddhism. I don't hold to that one ideology is the answer for everyone for there is never one answer to anything.

Buddhism has its boundaries or doctrines as of any ideology or ism, I am not myself into limiting my consciousness like this. "All else other than the ultimate state of pure awareness or nothingness is an illusion", I don't myself limit my consciousness to these perspectives or perceptions. In saying this, Buddhism teaches one to cope better in an ego created reality, as a lot of ideologies do. 

I find that Taoism and Hinduism are far less limiting, of course this depends on how you use these ideologies. I prefer Buddhism to materialism or westernized atheism myself. I should also say that materialism and atheism have their place as well. How many people would have starved to death if it wasn't for materialism? Materialism has given us more soul experiences to be experienced, however, when materialism is abused and misused, it becomes too destructive when not balanced out with the likes of Buddhism or spirituality as a whole. 

You see, to me there is never one answer or absolute state.


I wrote the following to someone in relation to the year being an emotional rollercoaster.

It is only as bad as we make it, why give it any more energy that it's worth? Learn from it and move on, of course at times easier said that done. I often look at it this way these days, it is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. As soon as we get into the negatives and positives, it's always more that it should be.

How often do we allow ideologies and isms to limit our consciousness? Probably the same amount we limit our own consciousness to certain specifics like positives and negatives, or, what is real and what is an illusion. Is Buddhism limiting consciousness to certain specifics? As of any ideology or ism, it is the way we use Buddhism that is limiting. As soon as we limit ideologies or isms to certain specifics, we are abusing energy as energy itself is of unlimited potentiality. It is like constricting energy to a certain space where motion is restricted to certain motions only. Often any motion outside these restricted boundaries is usually referred to as something negative and subsequently dealt with. Materialism, like religion or any other ideology, is fine when in balance within the environment that supports materialism. When used out of balance with the natural environment, abuse of energy is created and often accepted by the abusers, in other words we become conditioned to abusing energy through limiting it's potentiality to certain specifics, often to primarily serve the ego.

It is the same old story, if energy doesn't serve the elite, the ego in control, it is dealt with, usually discarded as something negative or illusionary. The elite can be a multinational but it can also be of people who try to be only of an elite or absolute state of being. An elite state of being in Buddhism is egoless, a state of pure awareness or nothingness, the funny thing is, once of this state, perceptions of negatives and positives, what is real and what is not real are absent, everything becomes what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

In a state in the absence of the ego, there is no negative and positive, what is an illusion and what is real, because there is no separation of energy in an egoless state, only through the ego can separation be perceived and put into motion. Look at it like this, as soon as you separate energy, energy becomes of motion, of the ego, of course separation of energy can only be implemented through the ego. This means the separation of energy to what is positive and negative, what is real and what is an illusion, is of the state of ego but a state that has always existed as well.

Once you get an imbalance of ego and egolessness, motion and motionlessness, through separation of energy is when an abuse of energy is often created. How many of us only desire to be of an elite state or status, where all else is discarded in one way or another thus creating a reality of abuse of energy? Who desires to be subservient or inferior to an elite status? The ego in control always desires to be of an elite status thus creating an imbalance in energy as of any separation of energy can. Yes, separate energy but be wise in how you separate energy, try to avoid abusing energy when separating energy. Balance is indeed the key here.  

I am subservient to the environment that is presently supporting my being, I would not have it any other way, accept to balance out my existence with the environment my existence is existing in and my ego (soul) is experiencing. As there is nothing wrong or negative with the ego or even the ego in control, there is nothing wrong with materialism. However, as it is of the way we use ideologies and isms, as soon as we become abusive to energy, we create a reality in line with this abuse. Try to remember, the only part of us that can see a wrong or negative in the ego and materialism, is the ego in control. There isn't even a wrong in being abusive, it's just being excessively abusive in the way we manipulate energy isn't a wise thing to do, not if we want to live in peace and harmony.

In all, it is what it is when we choose to abuse energy, nothing more, nothing less.......               

Saturday 19 May 2018

A Reality of Realities



Written by Mathew Naismith

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

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


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

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

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

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

Saturday 16 September 2017

The Mindless Western Mind!!




Written by Mathew Naismith

It was said to me recently in a discussion on the western and eastern mind that the western mind is controlling or maybe even of no mind. Considering that the yang and yin are within each other so is the eastern and western mind, one is never not of the other to one extent or another, it is therefore unlikely that the western mind is of total control and/or mindless. The following replies I gave to other people on this subject will explain this further.

The western mind, being of the greater ego, will of course judge someone like me stating that the western mind is mindless is judgmentally egotistic, however, the eastern mind observes this as simply pointing our an obvious weakness within the western mind itself. In saying this, as the western mind has it's weaknesses, so does the eastern mind. The difference is in that the eastern mind will acknowledge and deal with it's weaknesses, this is different to the western mind that primarily focuses on it's strengths while ignoring it's weaknesses.

_______________________________


Interesting Chinwhisker, this is probably why I relate Christianity and Hinduism, in the raw form, to be of both western and eastern mind, yin and yang, however, I only equate Buddhism to yin, the feminine, the eastern mind.

To me: Eastern mind = yin + feminine + of lesser ego
            Western mind = yang + masculine + of greater ego

A balance brings peace, God's kingdom, where an imbalance brings chaos, man's kingdom.

_______________________________

I also wrote the following reply on questioning the bible and the mindlessness of the western mind. It was interestingly mentioned that the western mind is of control or of no mind.

_______________________________


+Chinwhisker  It's all to do with how one is conditioned to read the bible, however, as I have found out,  prayers have been changed over time to reflect a different stance, is the bible the same?

If one is all ego, can we equate this to no mind? By destroying the very thing one relies on for it's existence to feed it's ego, I would say this is of no mind. 

China has destroyed it's natural environment mainly because of western influence through becoming more westernised.  Yes, I would say it's fair enough to call the western mind mindless.



Primarily focusing on, for example, positive thinking or love and light, is focusing on our strengths while noticeably ignoring the weaknesses. A good example of this is of children being abused in every way, this is ignored by positive and love and light people because it's too negative or toxic to address. It's a weakness that is plainly ignored. If half the people in the world spoke against this kind of abuse, a lot of children would be saved from abuse, instead, the western mind focuses on itself and it's own strengths, not it's own weaknesses. By ignoring these weaknesses because they are not of love and light or positive, allows these weaknesses to flourish, in actuality that is exactly what is presently occurring.

I should mention here that stating Buddhism is equated to the feminine (yin) and not also the masculine (yang) is in reference to it's philosophies. I believe that Buddhism came about for a need of a philosophy and an awareness to balance out life as a whole that was and still is primarily of the masculine. Even though Buddhism is of a religion as well as of philosophy, Buddhism wasn't meant to be followed or used in the same way as most ideologies. I believe Buddhism should be used in conjunction with other ideologies, not in opposition, a lot of western people following Buddhist philosophies, in my mind, are using Buddhism in opposition to other ideologies, not in conjunction.

It's funny to think it's the eastern part of the western mind that observes these weaknesses as the western mind is unable to. Consider this; can a man (yang) give birth? It's the same as the western mind being unable to address it's weaknesses, it needs the eastern mind to do this. Void of the eastern mind, the western mind can indeed be too controlling and mindless by primarily focusing on the ego, the outer world instead of the inner world or self.

_______________________________

Supplement:


I suppose the way we are looking at past lives is more western than eastern.

At times translation between western and eastern is easy, at other times virtually impossible. I don't think everything eastern can be successfully translated into western and probably visa-versa. Language is one barrier but so is the substance or meaning. Considering that the eastern and western mind looks at things in quite a different way a lot of the times, this figures.

I was talking to a bloke from India about the bhagavad gita, he simply said it's virtually impossible to convert the bhagavad gita to English, you lose too much of it's truer meaning. I don't think western language has as much inner depth and meaning as eastern languages. In saying this, I think the old English language has more depth than today's English; I'm not sure on this though.   

Sunday 26 June 2016

Atheism (Buddhism) is Correct


Written by Mathew Naismith

Both the Western atheist view and Buddhist atheism is correct in that there is no divine energy source or God/God's, the reason for this isn't that simple to explain mainly because of the different perspectives we have of our environment/reality. Each view represents a filter (perception) that gives us a different perspective of what is and isn't, what these filters (perceptions) do, is give us a certain perspectives. However as of always, perspectives are a measurement or judgment of what is and isn't that are built upon specific perceptions (filters). However in saying this, atheism as a whole is also incorrect at the same time as I will also try to explain but first I will share an interaction I had with some interesting people. 

Reply

Any meaningful change is possible only through understanding or through insight. Any thing that involves practice will only lead to propaganda or conditioning.

My Reply
Well stated +Meda Raveendra Reddy Foundation, practice is motion, the more motion we create, the more we are conditioned. 

Insight on the other hand doesn't create motion, it creates awareness void of conditioning, this is wisdom. 

A lot of people think we have to gain knowledge to become wise, however, knowledge is motion which will only create conditioning void of wisdom. 

Wisdom actually comes from understanding and insights so you couldn't be more correct here. Wisdom is truth, knowledge is lies.....awareness actually replaces knowledge, that is why wisdom is of truth. 

This is my insight which may or may not be correct.


Reply
Mathew Naismith You are absolutely right:) People see security in practices and then become conditioned. Once they are conditioned, they will not be able to see things beyond conditioning.

Reply to:
Meda Raveendra Reddy Foundation We all have our filters that filter reality. Enlightenment is when we start to see the world clearly. 1st the darkness, then the beauty behind all of creation.

Following Reply
Michael Hopkins Absolutely true. The ability to see things with out filters is possible, when our thoughts are free from the self and all identifications:)

My Reply
Filters I think explains it quite well Michael, when you look through different sunglasses with different sun filter, we get a different perspectives of our environment, of course it's all a lie (illusion).We find this out when we take the sunglasses off, take the darkness from our vision. 

You cloud vision, you cloud insight and a true sense of awareness, all you are left with is knowledge that is filtered. We need knowledge but it's filtered at present which detracts from actual insights. 

I've actually got to explain why atheism (Buddhism) is correct in certain aspects, however, as isms are, they are all wearing sunglasses with different filters. 

Instead of sun filters, for us, it's ism filters that all give a different perspective. No ism is totally incorrect but no ism is totally correct either. Take the filters away and we would observe something quite amazing to say the least. 

So lads, in my mind, you are perfectly correct. -:)


Now why is atheism correct that there are no divine energy sources and God's/God?

A lot of spiritual views state quite clearly, there is only one, one consciousness, one source of creation, oneness as a whole, this is the teachings of oneness, not dividedness, non-duality, not duality. Now we might perceive here we are talking about a God of creation but where not, not in this perspective.

There is only oneness, like a oneness with God if you like. If consciousness is one with God, what would then define a God when all consciousness is of God? Consciousness then becomes this God which negates a perception of God. This is the same with any kind of divine energy, once consciousness becomes one with this energy, what then defines divine when all energies are of the same? To define any divine energy, you have to have an energy source that is not of this energy, basically, if there is nothing to compare this divine energy to, this energy can't be perceived as a divine energy without a comparison.

Often, anything not of this oneness, is defined as being an illusion which means the belief in any kind of divine energy is an illusion.         

HOWEVER

What have we actually done here to define that there is no divine energy, it's all an illusion? We have once again used a specific perspective, the perspective being that only oneness exists, everything else is an illusion. I know we have to use perspectives but as I stated before, perspectives define measurements/judgment, so often can a consciousness be deceived by a perspective, especially a specific perspective that is defined through a specific perception that there is only oneness, everything else is an illusion.

The question is now, is there only oneness?

As of all isms, there is some truth, the Holey Trinity is no different. Please bare with me if you have a problem with religion, it's not all a fallacy. I'm not religious myself but I'm not going to allow this one perspective perception to act as but another filter. The link below is certainly worth investigating in my mind. It's wise not to denounce all other perspectives over one!!

______________________



Extract: You and I live in a three-dimensional world. All physical objects have a certain height, width, and depth. One person can look like someone else, or behave like someone else, or even sound like someone else. But a person cannot actually be the same as another person. They are distinct individuals.

God, however, lives without the limitations of a three-dimensional universe. He is spirit. And he is infinitely more complex than we are.

That is why Jesus the Son can be different from the Father. And, yet the same.

______________________


God is this oneness, however, God is also trinity within us at the same time, this of course is going to seem like a paradox to us, how can we be of one and at the same time be of the other? The 3D reality has given us the perception that it has to be one or the other, point blank. This is the real illusion, especially when we consider that consciousness is infinite and is limitless within it's expressions. Why limit consciousness to being of oneness only, isn't this trying to limit an obvious limitless consciousness which infers a specific perspective being used to judged what is what? 

In relation to oneness, we have perceived it's got to be just oneness, nothing else. How do you limit a limitless consciousness but man in his wisdom, or lack of, has perceived their is only oneness thus limiting oneness to man's limited perspectives. Once we bring in perspectives, we bring in ideas that are limited.

Perspectives = limitations + judgment + finite + man's consciousness and perceptions
The realization of a God or God's consciousness, gave us the awareness that this oneness does indeed exist even though it's usually beyond most people's comprehension. What we seem to have done now is perceived that this oneness is limited when we are talking about a limitless infinite consciousness. Our own finite reality seems to have given us the perceptions that this infinite oneness is also limited, this has come from our own perspectives that this infinite consciousness has to also be limited to one or the other. Basically, be careful with perspectives, they often don't tell the whole truth, also, oneness also includes being, not of oneness, but of oneself as well, this is the true sense of oneness or the true sense of God if you like.

Atheism is correct in that their is no God but only if of God consciousness itself, which we are not and truly, never have been. Infinite = timelessness, this means this separation from this consciousness has always existed, however, at the same time we were never separated within this infinite consciousness, only in finite consciousness are we separated being that the finite is of time. Finite = time.

This is hard to get an idea of, we have never been separated but at the same time we have, why limit consciousness as having to have to be one or the other, only man's finite consciousness would do this. Of course being finite is limiting.

The holey trinity makes sense, we are of one but at the same time separate from one, this is the way it has always been but of course the tricky deceptive ego wants to believe otherwise. We didn't come from oneness for we are of oneness, this includes being separate from this oneness. We didn't come from anywhere, we have always been what we are, one with oneness but also separate from this oneness.

It's tricky to comprehend because we are conditioned to think in black and white, good and bad, negative and positive, measurements therefore perspectives brought on by a perception of one or the other, not either or both. A true sense of oneness includes all of the above, oneness and separation from oneness, not just oneness.

No ism tells the utter truth so no ism can be the be and end all, meaning, of utter truth. When isms proclaims this, I then know they are not of this truth but deceptions, for how could a consciousness influenced by the finite truly know of utter truth, it's impossible. Atheism is correct in one perspective but not in another, it will always be so. We were never separated from this oneness (God), which indicates their is no God, for we are then of this God. For a God to exist, their has to be a lesser consciousness compared to God, if we are one with God, where is this comparison to define what is or isn't a God?

However in a different perspective, this separation from oneness has also always been, we have always been separated. This separation gives a perception that oneness (God) exists. Both perspectives are correct but remembering, perspectives deceives one from the other but only if we chose one over the other. Oneness over separation, separation over oneness.

______________________

Malign Energy

I'm going to add a very simple meditative technique to this post for some reason, I call it vibrational meditation. You can do this anywhere, even in the most nosiest places, you can even do this standing up.

Don't try to do anything, don't even try to stop thinking in any sense, instead just be within the present and only the present and most importantly, don't meditate for a reason, just do it. Within this, we take ourselves away from the five sense and this is the key.

This technique will give you a sense of harmony and bliss, you will end up in a tranquil peaceful environment, this is what you focus on, harmony, bliss and tranquil peacefulness. These words within themselves, are conducive to moving away from the influences of our five senses.

One other thing to be aware of is that malign energy has no energy within itself, we ourselves give them this energy, this is likened to multinationals drawing energy out of the populous. The only reason these people have power, is wholly due to the populous giving them this energy to start with, without this energy, they are powerless. This meditative technique will assist in your own energies from being sucked from you. The reason for this is that malign energy can only use the five sense to draw it's energy from, once you put yourself into another environment other than of the five sense, this hinders malign energy being able to draw energy from you.


However, as people like me do, we humble ourselves to man, this means we don't always  protect ourselves from malign energy sources, this is our way.   

Sunday 7 February 2016

Perceiving Beyond Philosophies and Ideologies


Written by Mathew Naismith

In recent days people into Buddhism have been telling me that Buddhism isn't a religion or an ideology, it's a path or a philosophy, however,  a God in no sense exists. To point out that God in any sense doesn't exist isn't philosophy, it's a fixated belief derived from a ideological view, this is because ideologies refer to a fixed sense of reasoning. Yes, this belief comes from a philosophical concept but it basically states a fixated view which denotes an ideological belief or view. 

Ideology = set views.

Philosophy = views that are not set. 

Just because an (ism) is based on philosophical beliefs and views, doesn't make it to be purely based on philosophy, most often ideological beliefs and views are incorporated within philosophy and Visa-versa. This integration of course is defined on the ism being followed and how it is followed. 

I wrote the following reply to a person who is obviously into Buddhism. 


 I think you will find that Buddhism is the awareness of ego and how the ego keeps us within lower dimensions of consciousness.

So I talk toooo much about ego in your mind, only because it influences everything we think and do. 

Very good point about respect, should not Buddhists also respect other ideological views and not put them down in anyway to obviously build upon their own ideology?   

https://www.quora.com/Is-Buddhism-a-religion-or-philosophy

"Buddhism doesn't fit neatly into either category of religion or philosophy. When people asked Buddha what he was teaching, he said he teaches "the way things are." He said nobody should believe his teachings out of faith, but instead they should examine for themselves to see if they are true or not." 

Ideologies refer to a fixed point of view, is not certain views an concepts of Buddhism fixed, there is no way a God exists for example?

Consciousness as a whole is not this limited, the absolute truth is that God does exist at the same time it doesn't, only an ego in control wouldn't be able to comprehend this. Any path, philosophy, ideology that states, this is it no matter what, is of a controlling ego as it's fixated to one point and one point only.

Let's consider Hinduism her, the philosophies and ideological vies of Buddhism fits within the philosophies and ideological vies of Hinduism, however,  the philosophies and ideological views of Hinduism don't fit within Buddhism. This alone infers that Hinduism is more about the whole collective self including ego, Hinduism doesn't exclude ego as it's part of our whole collective self. 

Consciousness itself has no limitation, so why limit ourselves within our philosophies and ideologies?  Once we limit ourselves to a set views or beliefs, our existence then also becomes set therefore limited. There is no way that consciousness itself has any kind of limitations. We so often limit ourselves to a particular philosophy and/or ideology when all philosophies and ideologies have merit and a worthiness  in some way. Everything around us tells us who we are, the belief in the existence of a God is but one, not one set of ideological principles or philosophies tell us about who we are as a whole in my mind.

If you wish to limit yourself to one set of ideological principles or philosophies, that is certainly up to you and there is absolutely nothing wrong in this, however, it's wise to become aware that consciousness as a whole has no such limitations when talking down, in any way,  other philosophical views and ideologies. Set yourself free of these controlling limitations, it's just not worth it. 

To put things into perspective I will share another reply I gave to a person into Buddhism         


I certainly understand this and I also understand that Buddhism can be more of philosophy than ideological views and beliefs. I also understand that Buddhism is also about just being.