Whole of Existence - A Singular Organism

Written by Mathew Naismith

I awoke during the night holding my hand out; this is of course no big deal. What was a big deal was what I perceived or envisioned that I was holding in my hand in awe, the entire existence as a whole. The wonderment I experienced wasn't just to do with what I was holding; it was to do with how the entire existence exists.

One simply creates the other, for example, bad creates good, negative creates positive, awareness creates unawareness, dark creates light and of course visa-versa. There was no perception that one was above another. That some almighty high level of consciousness resides as an ultimate state over all other states. What was obvious is that existence was of the ego and non-existence was egoless.

However, what's in observation of existence? What is the observer's state of consciousness to all other states of consciousness? As I was doing, I was in observation of existences as a whole. It was like observing a singular organism in motion with itself. It seemed to be important for me to perceive the whole existence as a singular organism, more importantly, an organism in motion with itself.

From an ego point of view, this observing state of consciousness is going to be desired to be the ultimate state over all other states. To do this, the ego has to put this state above all other states. The ego does this in different ways through the perception of God, light and love, some perceived ultimate state or however the ego desires to perceives this state to be. Don't get me wrong here, it's good that the ego does this; at least this gives the ego a perception of something more than an existence of ego. The organism in motion with itself is simply pure ego.

What is in observation of the entire ego existence, this singular organism in motion with itself, is a state void of the ego. This gives the perception, from an ego point of view, of a non-existence. As you could imagine from an egoless point of view, this is clearly not the case. Existence is of both ego and egoless states of existence. Just because one is of observation void of participation, void of the ego therefore motion, doesn't mean the observer doesn't exist!!

Being the observer observing the entire ego existence, isn't in observation of the entire existence when excluding observing the observer as well. Within my own actions here, I am also observing the observer in observation of the ego's existence. In other words, I have observed all of existence by observing the ego's existence, the participator, and the egoless existence, the observer in observation.

My ego wishes it could remember the dream that incited my experience here; it was not to be........

I decided to look up on related topics and came up with the following.

http://robertlanzabiocentrism.com/are-we-part-of-a-single-living-organism/

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/

http://highexistence.com/topic/the-universe-is-one-massive-single-cell-organism/

http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2016/05/how-all-living-things-are-connected-in-an-exam.html                    

The Flow of Motion

Written by Mathew Naismith       

I am presently active on a forum and I thought I would share a few replies I gave on the topic of ego and narcissism. I didn't insert other people's replies in this case as I simply didn't want to upset people, I also don't usually insert other people's comments from a forum on my posts. 

  __________________________   

An interesting perspective alejo18qd. 

Ego isn't narcissism but can lead to narcissism if the ego is in control. To me, all ego is motion of what is motionless, ego is basically an expression of what Buddhism calls pure awareness or nothingness, meaning, ego is of this motionlessness state expressed as motion.

Motionlessness = egoless

Motion = ego

Narcissism = ego in control. 

Ego is balance because it's neither of what is desired or undesired, only when the ego is in control is the ego of desire to be more than it is or more than what everything else is, for an example, to be more than what a judged old consciousness is, is the ego in control. To desire to be neither is ego and to just be all of what is void of desire is egoless, of motionlessness. 

Pure awareness just doesn't mean being aware of everything, it means being of everything void of bias or desire. Being of everything negates motion therefore ego because once everything is as one, there is no motion because there is no separation, only oneness/motionlessness. Only in separation as in yin and yang is everything of ego, this is until yin and yang become one with each other. 

Yin and yang working together is ego. Yin and yang not working together is egotism/narcissism and yin and yang working as one is egoless/motionless/oneness.

__________________________

Indeed, the so-called old-consciousness is ego but the new consciousness isn't suppose to be but by having and showing disdain for the old consciousness, one is still being exactly what they have disdain for, not just the ego but the ego in control. 

The ego to me simply represents limitations, the more of the ego we become, the more limited we become consciously, of course the more limited we become, the more destructive (hurtful) we become. I think our present reality shows this quite clearly, look upon what we are doing to the Earth and each other. 

So has our controlling ways got something to do with our limitations? I think so for only the ego desires to change everything to it's own desires thus limiting itself only to it's desires. 

To me, the soul is of the ego but I suppose one must experience this first hand to acknowledge this.

__________________________

A good epitome and query to make Tawmeeleus, if it's all an illusion, does it really matter what the ego does?

Speaking from my own perspective I think it does, however, I do realise from other people's/souls perspective it doesn't. I suppose this is why we have different perspectives and perceptions, each person/soul is simply different within it's own motion.

Is the illusion real or not?

Within the very present it's occurring so it's real, it's really not a real illusion that it's fake, it's only an illusion because the ego creates it that way that we are only of the illusion of time/ego, of course people like you and I know different.

Is time measured in day and night an illusion? Day and night obviously exist on planets but not in outer space but this is but one measurement of time. Distance, volume and cycles are also of time for which the universe is governed by.

In my mind is everything of time/ego an illusion as in fake, not real? No, but time/ego can delude us to think this is all we are, this is the illusion.

So does it matter? To people like me, yes. I simply don't have disdain for the ego for the ego is always apart of us as in motion and has always been a part of us. Motion, time and ego have always existed because there is no starting point of time within timelessness for time to start existing, how can time start to exist within nothingness even as an illusion?

I simply look at time/ego as motion that has always existed and has always been apart of us so yes it matters. 

Chosen Path

Written by Mathew Naismith

I've experienced some interesting interactions with other people recently. Are people like me critically judgemental or simply expressing what we observe in the absence of a black and white mentality? It's wise to be aware when people lash out at other people, it's good sign their being controlled by the ego. This reaction of course needs a depiction of one thing in reference to something else, for example, the comparing of a negative in reference to a positive. It's what I call a black and white mentality; it has to be one or the other.

When an ego in control lashes out in critical judgment, this has to be done through a black and white mentality, being that the ego in control is always positive and the critically judged is always negative. How often do people like me critically judge like this, it's simply wrong or right, negative or positive, black or white? Now, how many other people judge through a wrong or right, negative or positive, black or white mentality? It is however natural for the ego in control to turn the tables or the emphasis from itself to anything else threatening it's control and existence, people like me are a prime example of this.             

I will now share a recent post I posted on a forum that is in relation to this topic, I also inserted one of my replies I wrote.   

_______________________

I don't get this, maybe someone on here can assist me with this.

People like me are often critically judged as being narcissistic, negative, egotistical, toxic and so on it goes, for simply expressing our own experiences and observations. People like me usually observe through the absence of a black and white mentality, an ego in control obviously finds this most threatening.

People's egos who judge through a black and white mentality, will often define anyone not of their egos liking narcissistic, negative, egotistical, toxic and so on, how else would anyone critically judged other people in this way?

Through the judgment of a black and white mentality, people like me are supposed to be (judged) narcissistic. Just recently I wrote a post stating first up that I know little of this particular subject, I also often state that a lot of what I write is channelled through me and not from me. I have even stated that what is being channelled through me I know very little about.

I'm also suppose to be (judged) egotistical, a strange egotism when I often express myself in a way that a controlling ego finds threatening, in the process making myself exceptionally unpopular. Just because someone expresses their experiences that questions the control the ego has over us, doesn't make the person egotistical but of course it will to an ego in control.

It's like a drug addict addicted to an addiction, the controlling ego will lash out at anything questioning it's existence and it's control. The controlling ego sees people like me as being a huge threat to it's control, of course the ego in control is going to lash out like this, just like a drug addict.

People like me are also supposed to be (judged) as being judgmentally critical. If I was to judge in accordance with a black and white mentality, of course I would be judgmentally critical. Honestly, I would be exactly like the people who judge people like me so critically through their black and white mentality.

Of course an ego in control is going to lash out like this, it's perfectly natural for an ego in control to lash our in fear of it's own control and existence. In actuality, if people's egos didn't lash out at people like me, I simply wouldn't be following my chosen path in life.

__________________________

My Reply

Making reference to old energy patterns refer to the past, you can't have a perception of time without making reference to the ego as time is motion and all motion is ego.

So, if I was to refer to certain patterns as being old, I am in actuality making reference directly and mainly to the ego. 

Old is in reference to new, a black and white mentality, which can only exist in an ego based reality/existence.  This is exactly how the ego tricks us in thinking the new isn't of the ego when it's just as much if not more of the ego.  There is simply no new or old in relation the divine consciousness, why? The divine consciousness is infinite in nature, not finite, this simply means it's not based on time but timelessness. Because there is no time, the perception of old or new can't exist because the perception of old and new needs a starting point of origin to exist  to start with, there is simply no starting point of origin within the divine consciousness.  In actuality, the divine consciousness isn't above human consciousness, only the ego in control perceives this to be the case. One being over and above another is pure ego, nothing else.     

Also, having any kind of disdain for the old consciousness is egotistical; this includes having disdain for anyone who defends this so-called old consciousness.  In my mind, too many people into spirituality today exist in disdain, this is pure ego for only can the ego express disdain. 

Do people like me truly defend this old consciousness?  When you truly live by the divine, what is old and new, black and white? This kind of consciousness in my mind can't possibility exist within the divine consciousness but many people obviously think it  does.  The ego can be exceptionally deceptive, it's wise to be aware of this, but as always, the ego will at all cost refute what I have stated here, or, it is simply unable to acknowledge what I have stated here. 

 Are people like me narcissistic or egotistical for pointing out the obvious? The ego in control will always say yes, however, the ego that isn't in control will say no for obvious reasons.  Please don't be duped by the ego, it's a tricky little devil but only when in control.   

  

I should point out, when people like me make reference to egotistical in relation to myself or others, this observation isn't of disdain like the ego in control  perceives, it's simply pointing out an obvious that motion is naturally limiting, nothing more. People like me simply don't have disdain for egotism for it's not of the divine consciousness to do so. If to the controlling ego defending old consciousness is ego, people like me are happy to be of the ego in the egos mind, for this shows we are not of the ego but of the divine.  Simply, the ego is a trickster, it will always accuse itself of being of itself, within this, the ego will always be in control.

Ok, I see now, acknowledging that the divine consciousness isn't of some higher stature than human consciousness is going to be impossible to imagine.

There is no true separation between the divine consciousness and human consciousness, within this understanding, how can divine consciousness be of a higher stature? Only through ego is everything separated and of levels/separations. 

As I understand it, divine consciousness only observes a difference in motion between itself and human consciousness. Human consciousness is merely seen as limited in nature, it's not judged as being of a lower stature to itself. Yes, the ego will see that a more limited consciousness as being of a lower stature, only can the ego judge in levels like this, this is not the case for the divine consciousness.

So if a consciousness is limited, it's of a lower stature!! Only to the ego in control is this the case, so why an ego in control? The perception of levels is all about control, the control and dominance of a lower level, in other words, control and dominance over a consciousness that is limited.

Divine consciousness simply means a limitless consciousness, an infinite consciousness in nature.   

Releasing Ourselves from Limitations

Written by Mathew Naismith

This post is a follow on from my last post, Pleasure Centres of the Mind. If your ego didn't like the last post, it is unlikely the ego will like this post. Put simply, the ego doesn't like anything that doesn't' excite the pleasure centre within a reality based on pleasures. Let's be honest with ourselves here, everything, including spirituality these days, is based on positive vibrations as opposed to negative vibrations, in other words what pleases the senses is positive, what doesn't is negative.

This is too obvious for people like me. I have become involved in numerous spiritual based forums in the last 8 (eight) years, too often has spirituality been based purely on what pleases the pleasure centre of the mind, the ego. This of course takes one to ignore and even denounce anything that vaguely threatens what pleases the pleasure centre of the mind. Most of the forums I have been involved in have either removed me from the forum or I removed myself from the forum. When you realise you are upsetting people's ego to no end, there is no point in continuing being involved.

Once our pleasure senses have been tantalised, anything that vaguely threatens this pleasure is denounced or ostracised. What seemed to have occurred is that spirituality is purely based on fear, while at the same time denouncing religion for being based on fear. This has been proven to me over and over again on most of these forums; people literally show fear of their own pleasures being threatened in any sense simply through their own actions. I should also point out I am still involved in certain forums/groups to one degree or another, probably because the people on these forums don't seem to see people like me as threat.

Are people like me a threat to the control the ego has over other people?

Yes, to the ego, people like me seem to be a threat to it's existence, the truth is, people like me are only a threat to the control the ego has over people, not to the ego own existence. In actuality, only the ego can experience a sensation of being threatened, people like me are not even a threat to the control the ego has over other people, for only the ego can experience threatening sensations. What I am saying is, only can the ego become a threat to itself, this simply occurs when the ego awakes to itself for only the ego can control ego. People like me are not about control but the ego will perceive that we are, especially when the pleasure centre is threatened in any sense.

I have found it quite amusing over my time on these forums, I have also found it saddening that once again so many people are using spirituality to obtain and maintain a certain level of pleasure. This of course takes one to become deliberately unaware of anything that threatens these pleasurable experiences. Firstly, where is the oneness in this and secondly, it is obvious that such blatant ignorance will not lead to a state of pure awareness, pure bliss.

Bliss is not obtained through insurmountable conditions; bliss can only be obtained through putting no conditions on anything and become all of what is.

As I have personally experienced on most forums, you are not allowed to express anything that seems to threaten the control the ego has over the pleasure centre in any sense. So many people are putting more conditions on themselves and others, not less, to protect the control of the ego has over the pleasure centre of the mind. What do these insurmountable conditions denote? Limitations, this simply means we are limiting ourselves more, not less. I suppose this figures as more people these days seem to desire to be more control. How many conditions are there for someone to be in control? The more control we desire, the more conditions there are, of course the more control we experience or desire, the more conditions (limitations) we put on upon ourselves and others around us.

I will put it this way by using our present environment. A lot of people want to limit themselves to the light, of course this takes a lot of conditions (limitations) to obtain this in the first place. Would the Earth be as beautiful as it was if there wasn't a balance, a moderation, of light and dark? Now imagine the light controlling the dark through it's own conditions, it's own limitations, how beautiful would have the Earth been then? How beautiful is the universe with it's insurmountable contrasts of light and dark?  

The light tantalises our pleasure centre when the dark threatens our pleasure centre, but what would the light create void of the dark, the yin void of the yang? The Earth as it was simply couldn't have existed under such conditions, such limitations, and what a shame that would have been for the ego not to have experienced!!  

For The Children Come First

Written by Mathew Naismith  

Mother's, I need your assistance please.

Do the children make the mother a mother?  Considering a child isn't a child without a mother, is it not the child who makes a mother a mother? Also, is not a mother only a mother when of a child?

Without a child, is not a person only of a person when not of a child, meaning, not influenced by a child maternally?

The reason I query this has to do with how numerous spiritually aware people put themselves first and foremost. For example, it's about themselves feeling good over and above other people who are suppose to be less aware like a child is.

It's funny to think, but it's the less aware child that makes a mother a mother, and of course, the child always comes first for the mother, especially above any personal feel good sensations!! 

Note: If any mother's replies to this, it is likely I will insert their reply in one of my posts for my blog unless otherwise stipulated. Also, names will be excluded unless otherwise stipulated.

____________________________

What is one of the major mistakes of churches? The church comes first and then the hierarchy and then God and maybe the people of the church.

What is a church without it's people? Like a mother, a church is not a church without it's people like a mother is not a mother without a child. Maternally, the unaware child comes first. Now what is occurring in Westernised spirituality today? The mother or the church is still coming first and foremost. The church in this case being ones own personal well being and pleasure/desire. As long as the mother/church is well and feeling good, this will automatically pass onto the child. Of course in this case the child would be lucky to come second, most often other hierarchy of the same awareness level comes second, where does this leave the child that makes the mother/the church?

So what is the aware without the unaware as what is the church without it's people or a mother without a child? As of the true spiritually aware, the unaware comes first, look at people like myself who really put themselves out there because it's not about ourselves and our own well being. It's almost maternal if not maternal, the child comes first.

As within myself, my child, my unaware state, comes first for it needs to be nurtured, not put on a list that it comes second best to all else, particularly in relation to my desires and feel good sensations. Yes, people like me could just sit within our feel good desired states and ignore all these deemed negatives, dark and toxic energies but we don't, for the children come first and foremost.

The child simply represents an unaware state that needs to be nurtured, mothered, for the mother is not a mother without it's children. What is the yin without the yang? Basically, what is the aware self without unaware self? Would we judge our children as toxic or negative and then ignore them because of these judged vibrations? Of course this occurs in certain situations when the maternal mothering instinct isn't present. We are supposed to be one; there is simply no oneness without maternal mothering instincts. Ignoring the child, the people of a church, the unaware self, because we have judged it so in accordance with our own personal level of hierarchy, is not oneness or maternally mothering, it's simply a depiction of an ego in control.

Too many spiritual teachings these days teach to put the self first and foremost, it all starts from you when it's the children that make the mother a mother. We spend all the money and time on our personal selves, when all we need to do is simply put the children first above our own desires and feeling of self-gratifications. If we spend all this time and money on ourselves to feel good, this has to benefit the rest of the world in the long run as this will flow on. Of course while we are doing this, we are neglecting the children by judging them toxic, negative, bad, dark, and on and on it goes. Yes indeed, what many spiritually aware people have expressed has been passed on; the world at present represents this.

Yes, without the mother a child can't be a child, so the mother must also be mothered by these same motherly instincts, but at no point should the mother be put above all else but this is exactly what is occurring in spirituality today to a large extent. Only a perfect balance between the child self and the motherly self can true peace and love reside. Neglecting one over and above the other will create anything but peace and love, only a falsified and fabricated peace and love. One is infinite, the other finite, we are both and not of one or the other as we are the child and the mother, the church and the people, the aware and unaware.

People like me are simply aware that we are just as much of the aware as the unaware, the child and the mother without neglecting one over and above the other.

Did people like Buddha face their own ego or the ego as a whole, as one entity?

Do not the children of a mother naturally quell the ego within the mother?

Focusing all this energy on the self to feel good while at the same time avoiding what is deemed as toxic/negative is pure ego. No, it doesn't start from the self, the (I); it starts from the collective as a whole, as people like Buddha eventually find out.

As not all mothers controlling egos will be quelled, not everyone will be able to face the controlling ego face on without acceptation; the ego has simply too much control, it is wise to be aware of this in my mind.

It is wise the child comes first before the ego.........Mathew G

______________________________

If you are interested, the following replies to my request from mothers are as follow. The mother in all of us has a lot to teach as the child has to learn, but are we willing or ready to listen to child as yet, basically, learning from and through the unaware, something a lot of us critically judge??

              

Mathew....I found the Divine Mother Within.... there is the perfect vibration of mothering within us all.... and I think when that Vibration becomes or is Remembered then One would act in accordance with exactly how Devine Mother would act... there is no room then for egotistical actions... Thank you for asking!!....btw....I have Mothered 13 kids in this life time.

Also

    

Hey so here's my answer.... If so....my answer is this. Spiritually awakened people realize that their children come through them not to them. The spiritually awakened person knows the child has a closer connection to source because of their innocence and lack of cognitive dissonance. The spiritually awakened person knows they are here to guide and also learn from their children. Understanding that there is no right or wrong but an observation of the contrast they see, hear, and feel and then choose the perspective of the person they want to be. Before coming into this physicality the child knows what he or she wishes to experience and will choose the parents that will guide them in experiencing it.

Also

Motherhood makes one whole. As Heath Ledger put it, parenthood is an extension of oneself the knowledge that a small being was borne from the union of two people is a miraculous event; that one's blood runs through the veins of another. One's life changes immediately. However, even if you are not a mother by bearing another, you can still give those qualities to others and feel whole in yourself on a different level.

My Reply

Yes, it's all to do with the maternal instincts; you express this quite often Susan even though you are not an actual mother yourself. Are gay people negative or toxic because they express themselves different to ourselves? Are children toxic because they express themselves different to adults? Same thing in my mind. Once you embrace instead of avoid, you have become the maternal mother.

I certainly appreciate your response here Susan, thank you.

I give thanks to all the mothers within for your participation here, most appreciated, as I needed assistance in expressing deep seated maternal instincts over and above the controlling ways of the controlling ego.  

Giving a True Sense of Assistance

Written by Mathew Naismith 

I was recently presented with a person that is going through insurmountable trauma at present, part of the trauma brought about by external forces also includes their partner; this of course exasperates the trauma. By the sounds of it, my assistance is greatly assisting this person to cope better with this said trauma.

When we seemingly have no control over these kinds of external influences, the ego goes into spasm, basically, the ego chucks a patty, meaning, the ego becomes infuriated. The ego simply has to have control, or more precisely, a sense of control even when the ego is never really in control itself, of course the ego denies it's never in control and this is the point. When the ego grasps a hold on a judged positive, as a sense of control is, it will deliberately stay ignorant to everything else.

Positive thinking isn't just destructive to everything negative (dark), it's a high state of ignorance which can exasperate trauma to the extent of hate. How many people of positive thinking hate negative thinking (dark)? Of curse the ego in a false sense of control will categorically refute that it hates. Purposely going into a state of ignorance of something detestable is a form of hate to start with.

This person I'm assisting at present isn't a naturally hating person but they mentioned hating someone, of course during our discussion, we found that this person didn't really hate which was a load off their mind to start with. Anger can lead to hate but anger within itself isn't of hate. At this point the ego is simply infuriated not being in control, only when the ego has no or little control can anger lead to hate. How many people hate being negative or of expressing the ego? It is obvious to people like me it's got to this point of hating, probably primarily due to our present reality being so hatful and destructive.

When people like me express balance and moderation in these circumstances, we are often put down by people who are either of one or the other. The ego simply has to have or take control in these circumstances, any other way is simply deliberately ignored (refuted) or put down (degraded). Yes, people like me are hated for expressing balance and moderation; this has been too obvious from an ego trying to gain more and more control. This reminds me of religious fanatics and multinational who just simply can't get enough control. Any kind of detesting is a form of hate; this includes detesting not having or gaining more and more control and the detestation of negatives (darkness).

What I have gone through in certain parts of my life would be judged by many positive thinking people and of love and light people of being negative (dark). If you simply have no awareness of one or the other, dark of the light, positive of the negative, how would you truthful be able to assist people in this kind of reality? By preaching and destroying everything not positive and of love and light!!

How many people are trying to help other people by influencing others of their way of control while deliberately staying ignorant to what they detest themselves?  Multinational detest being poor and not being in control. Religious fanatics, positive thinking people and people only of love and light are exactly the same, but their egos will tell them otherwise as always. If I didn't go through the life I did, would I have a right to even try to assist people in trauma? How many people on the net are doing just this?  It's insurmountable while at the same time being deliberately ignorant to most of what is, even to balance and moderation.

To live in ignorance of everything except of one idealism, isn't awareness and is certainly not of a true sense of positive being or of love and light, for there is simply no true sense of love and awareness in ignorance, especially when it's deliberate.

I have spoken to a number of people on this. A pure sense of awareness is love and light, being that light and love is this pure awareness state, for example, Buddhism speaks of this pure awareness. You simply can't get into this state while detesting everything else not of this state, in any sense, for this pure aware state is not of a controlling ego that has to be in control in one way or another. As soon as the ego labels this state as love and/or light, it's of a controlling ego and of ignorance to everything that is not of itself.

I often say to people to just walk away if any form of control is causing you trauma, of course the ego desires to anything but just simply walk away, it desires to take back control even to the point of hating. Hate and detesting anything gives the ego a sense of control when in actuality the ego is less in control. This person I am trying to assist now realises that any sense of hate or detestation is in actuality a loss of control. As I have said before, you need to use the ego against itself. Give the ego a sense of control but in a more truthful manner.

How many multinationals are in control of their greed and power mongering? How many people of positive thinking and of love and light are truly in control when they are purposely existing in ignorance?  It's impossible for any of these people to truthfully assist other people not of their own. Yes, they can deceptively influence people but not honestly because an ego that desires to take control is anything but truthful.

This pure awareness state that seems like love and light to the ego is simply not about control, it's simply being that is everything of this awareness which of course includes an ego in control. Everything is because there is no control, only a false sense of control.

To put it simply, I could not truthfully assist people in trauma if it wasn't for my own traumas in life and especially having an awareness of the controlling ways of the ego. You simply need to be aware while avoiding all extremes when applicable to truthfully assist other people.        

Diminishing the Egos Control

Written by Mathew Naismith

The egos control over us is evident. The present environment in the world reflects this in more ways than one, extreme expressions in religion and materialism are but two examples of the control the ego has over us. Within this control, we can see how destructive a controlling the ego can be, in actuality, we are privileged to witness this event in human history.

Awareness comes in many forms and has no limitations to it's expressions, only can the ego limit awareness to certain set boundaries......Mathew G

Within the whisperings, an ego that is wised up only needs to be whispered to, not shouted at. Simply, expressions of extremism denote shouting while whisperings denote an awareness and wisdom. Some of us have listened to the whisperings, a lot of us will only listen when shouted at, this is simply shown within the extreme expressions being expressed today. In the end, the shouting will get that loud, and of course destructive, to the point most people will be unable to ignore the shouting, they will be given no choice at this point.

Where indeed has the wisdom gone when a consciousness needs to be shouted at to become aware?

We are privileged to be shouted at in this way, imagine not being able to hear a whisper or a shout to awaken the ego to itself, is it possible that the ego can actually get to this point? Honestly observing our environment today, it is obvious certain people will never listen no matter how loud the shouting becomes, and yes, the ego has this extent of control over them.

A controlling ego gives us a sense of control over our environment, even though this control is always fleeting. How many empires of the past still dominate us today? Yes, the controlling factors of the ego are still around today but the empires themselves aren't. Nothing that the ego creates lasts for long; the only reason the controlling factors of the ego are still around today, is because we have not yet learnt how to release ourselves from this control.      

Wisdom; simply does not come from knowledge and experience, this is an ego perception. Considering how deceptive the ego can become, it's amazing that many of us are still duped (tricked) by the ego in this way.

How many centuries have human consciousness been warring or expressing extremes? Has human consciousness learnt and become wise from these numerous experiences?

Human consciousness is seemingly more intelligent and knowledgeable than ever, how wise has this truly made us?

How many people think wisdom and awareness are about taking control? Probably the same amount of people who think meditation or various other Eastern practices are about taking control. Eastern practices, like mediation, are simply about releasing yourself from the control of the ego mind. As soon as we think these practices are about taking control, we have lost the true benefits of these practices because the ego is just as much if not more in control. All controlling expressions denote an ego in control, especially if we are trying to control the ego. At no point should you try to control the ego to diminish the egos control over us, by doing so, you are doing anything but diminishing the egos control.

Wisdom uses the ego against itself as all motion denotes ego, including practices like meditation. Yes, meditation is a motion that can take away the controlling factors of the ego upon itself, in-effect, using the ego against itself. The only reason this works is that we are using a non-controlling ego to diminish the control of the ego upon itself. It's funny to think this but the ego can only control itself, basically, only of things of motion, sadly for a lot of people in the West; this includes using mediation to take control instead of releasing control.

How many people in the West think that Taoism or Tai Chi is about taking control of our mind and/or body? It's all about releasing our mind and body from the limitations of control that allow you to be more flexible and open in mind and body. In the West, we tend to think everything is about taking control; this is the way Western culture is, it's wise to be aware of this in my mind.

How many people in the West fear expressing the ego or egotism? They fear the ego because they are still trying to take control of the ego having control over them, which is in actuality the ego trying to take control. It is truly wise to be aware that only a controlling ego can take control, being that all motion is of the ego, this makes perfect sense to people like me. Simply, if you are expressing any kind of motion, you are of the ego, however, you don't have to be of the controlling ego.

1/ Become aware that all control denotes a controlling ego in control

2/ Become aware that you can wise the ego up to it's controlling ways, the ego can certainly become conditioned to releasing all control over taking control over all

3/ Wisdom is simply aware of the controlling ways of the ego as only in wisdom can the ego diminish the control of the ego.

4/ Wisdom is simply not obtained through experience and knowledge but an awareness beyond the ego limitations. Yes, you can become aware and wises through experiences and knowledge but only if we stop trying to persistently take control. All control is limiting and of the controlling ego

5/ Simply think about releasing control to taking control

Do we not take control of our breathing while meditating for example? Are we not trained by teachers of the ancient Eastern practices to take control of the mind and body as a whole?  

No, your ego is simply being conditioned to focus on one thing at a time. Your ego is not being controlled to focus but conditioned to focus. Because the ego tries to control everything within it's own environment, it is conditioned to simultaneously focus on many things. Focusing on the breath, to controlling the breath, allows us to take away the control of the ego over itself. Basically what you are doing is setting the ego free of it's limitations by focusing instead of controlling. Never try to control your breath while meditating, simply focus.

Once you have conditioned your ego to focus on one thing while letting go of control of everything else, you will notice that your breathing patterns will change quite naturally. The ego will fight to the bitter end to keep it's control, this is why everything that isn't about control is perceived to be of control by the ego in control.

One more thing, you are releasing the ego of it's own controlling ways by not taking control but releasing control. You are actually doing the ego a favour for within the egos control it is limited, however, no ego desires to become aware of it's own limitations upon itself, so it will do anything to deceive itself of it's own self-created predicament......    

Beyond the Ego-Deeper Reflections

Written by Mathew Naismith

You now and again, through the passage of life, come across people who are deeply reflective, a bloke I have known for some time now of the name of Michael Hopkins is but one of these people. Mike's poems seem to reflect an awareness beyond the control of the controlling ego expressions. To an ego in control, Mike's poems would seem non-sequential rhetoric to the ego mind, very simular to my own reflections. As of any experience in the offering, the ego in control usually misses out in these experiences that are on offer.

This kind of awareness and subsequent experiences that are beyond the expressions of a controlling ego, is often taken to be egotistic by the ego mind. It's amazing how the ego mind stops us from experiencing the true reality of life, in turn, stopping our mind from becoming aware beyond the ego mind. When you go beyond the ego mind, there is simply no misery mainly because there is no separation, only in separation (unawareness) can a consciousness suffer within it's own misery.

_______________________________

http://mnhopkins.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/mind-cannot-see-love-poem-by-mn-hopkins.html

"Mind cannot see Love

Which is not within it’s view

Only reflections"

© 2017. M.N. Hopkins

My Reply

Very good point Mike, how could a true sense of love become aware to the ego mind?

It's been there recently for me to write about how the ego mind isn't aware of all it experiences. How often does a child's ego mind, especially in adolescence, refute the full existence of their parents love and affection? They are often quite unaware, especially when the parent/parents are in a teaching mode, in other words preparing the child for adulthood trials and tribulations.

How often is the macho ego mind of an adult not fully aware of their partner's full love, affections and feelings? How aware is an egoistic female?

My wife or I make a mess in the house; it matters not who cleans it up because it's always our mess. A true sense of love is binding, a false sense of love is separating. Love and light is a prime example of this separation from dark, of course the dark is only as negative as the light perceives. In a lot of couple's relationships, a mess made by the other partner is seen as a negative so they don't clean it up or clean it up under protest. My wife and I have a neutral existence/relationship, everything is neutral with no separation of negative or positive, dark and light, within this, we become aware of the experiences beyond the egos control.           

These experiences are there but the ego mind either doesn't become aware of them or turns them it something the ego mind relates to. The ego mind is seemingly unable to comprehend anything it can't relate to so these experiences are either not noticed or they are turned into something the ego relates to. In this sense of turning an experience into something the ego can relate to is of deception.

We all experience so much, especially the experiences that are not picked up through the five senses. People like you and I are very lucky Mike.

Reply

Indeed we are Mat. Makes living in the world a bit easy to have some slight distance from the dictates of ego. Happy weekend Mat and same to your dear wife.

My Reply

If you don't mind Mike, I'm going to insert your reflection here on my post. You are a very in-depth and reflective person Mike, I am very lucky to have crossed your path in life. 

_______________________________

"Only can the ego awaken to itself through it's own inner reflections"......Mathew G

Are people like Mike and I egoistic in the way we express ourselves within our writings?

"Only the ego mind can judge what is and isn't of the ego"......Mathew G

To express an awareness is ego but not necessarily of a controlling ego, in actuality, a controlling ego is anything but aware, for all a controlling ego can comprehend is ego. This basically means a controlling ego is only aware of it's own reflections, anything beyond these reflections just simply doesn't exist to the ego. This simply means that anything that the ego is aware of, like what people like Mike and I write about, has to be egoistic. 

"There is a point were the ego is wise or wised up to itself, only then is the ego able to make itself fully aware.....Mathew G

The ego needs ego to make itself aware of itself. Seen as all motion denotes ego, this includes writings based in inner reflections. It's difficult to avoid this and at no time should this be avoided. "A controlling ego desires to stay ignorant, for it is only of itself and about itself, nothing else exists to the ego in control". Used correctly, the ego can be exceptionally enlightening, however, this can only occur if it doesn't judge it's own ego self as something to avoid and detest, basically, have fear upon it's own reflections.

"It is wise to never fear being expressive of the ego for only in this fear is the ego in total control"....Mathew G

Try making the ego aware of itself through non-egoistic reflections; it simply will not occur as the ego is unaware of anything not of itself. The ego needs ego reflections to become aware of itself; it's this simple. Again, the ego used correctly is exceptionally enlightening to the ego mind, only can this occur though when the ego is not in control of the mind.

"The mind is what we make it to be. If it's of ego, ego it will be. If it's of pure awareness, pure awareness it will be"......Mathew G

My wife and I have a female garden nursery owner in awe. I'm usually jovial and I joke around a lot, especially in relation to my wife. This alone has this lady in awe, sadly, it would seem this lady has experienced very little of this from her partner/partners in her life.

When my wife mentioned about how I cook, wash and wipe the dishes, clean the house, this lady was even more in awe. I don't think we will mention about how I iron my own clothes and make the bed every morning, etc. 

To someone who is macho (egocentric), I am completely under the thumb, meaning, being under my wife's control, however, all I am doing is existing in a neutral existence with my wife. The ego in control simply can't comprehend this, there has to be a form of control, not of releasing control.

It's simply amazing how the ego in control stops us from experiencing the things in life that are enlightening and working in harmony together as one, I suppose after all, the ego in control is anything but aware of anything that is not of itself!!    

Progression, Not Division

Written by Mathew Naismith

I had a personal good friend of mine read my latest post on primary existence and envelopment, my friend was confused in exactly what I meant in relation to a primary existence. I will within this post explain what I mean about primary existence in a different format as below.

Primary Existence = God, zero point, nothingness, oneness, truer self, Tao, higher self + egoless + undivided

Secondary Existence = Soul consciousness (reality), human consciousness (reality) + ego + divided

Primary Existence: It would seem strange to a lot of people that I made reference here to a primary existence in relation to, for example, a Christian God and a Buddhist principle of nothingness. It is most likely that people from each of these ideologies, would state there is nothing in common with a God and nothingness. To a Buddhist, the representation of a God is ego, nothingness is egoless, consequently, a Christian might state that God is nothingness, how in this case can the perception of God and nothingness relate to a primary existence but they do?

Primary existence relates to our whole self before it's divided into secondary existences,  each soul has it's own path so therefore is divided by individual paths. This division relates to secondary existences, actually, the motion of dividing automatically creates secondary existences. Basically, a primary existence is an existence that is undivided, it's all of everything or nothing of anything.

The relation to everything, as a perception of God or oneness for example, in a primary existence denotes an undivided existence, a whole or collective that is undivided. God represents everything therefore is undivided within itself. This is the same with nothingness, there is no division in nothingness. The Tao is exactly the same, there is no division, it's all and nothing, not all or nothing.

This is how we perceive, we perceive through the ego so it has to be one or the other. The ego in control can only comprehend anything if it's one or the other, so to the ego, everything can't be the same as nothing, even though everything and nothing represent an undivided existence. Of course to various ideologies, it has to be one or the other, everything being of the ego, nothing being of egoless in some cases.

The division or difference between Christianity and Buddhism for example, is an obvious illusion brought on by perceiving through the ego self for only the ego itself will divide. Christianity makes reference to a God, an undivided existence, Buddhism makes reference to nothingness, again an undivided existence. What about nothingness not even being an existence!! Only an ego in control would argue what is and isn't determined to be an existence or not, so I'm not going down this path to try to find a division for obvious reasons, I will leave this to the secondary existence ego control mind to sort this out. Of course it never truly will because all it would be doing is chasing it own tail to judging what is and isn't real, an illusion.

Being that the secondary existences are ego based, but not  necessarily egotistical based, the secondary perception is focused on division, this of course stands to reason because ego and souls represent division. Basically, anything that is obvious within it's division, is ego based, this in turn creates an ego based perceptions of divisions, not wholeness or oneness unlike a primary existence. The primary existence mind focuses on wholeness and oneness of everything as well as nothing, there are no divisions between one or the other, actually, there is no one or the other, just wholeness, oneness.

Yes, everything and nothing are exactly the same thing, it's just in a secondary existence mind, there has to be division, one or the other...!!

Primary Existence = (and)

Secondary Existence = (or)

Progressions: We might now think that there is a huge difference (division) between primary and secondary existences, they are obvious within their differences as I have clearly pointed out.

There is only a perceived difference, a division, in a secondary existence. When observing from a primary perspective, there are no divisions, only progressions. The secondary existence mind always puts limitations on everything, there has to be a division between one and the other, not a progression void of divisions and this is the point. How often do we focus on division instead of progressions void of actual divisions? There is an endless progression between primary and secondary existences, this motion is infinite. The motion between primary and secondary existences have always existed, what hasn't always existed is what these motion between the two existences create. The universe and human consciousness are prime examples of what this motion physically creates which are of course finite in nature.

Primary Existence= motionlessness + non-creative + infinite

Secondary Existence = motion + creative + finite

The perception of the Tao or the perception of God, actually relate to both the primary and secondary existences as being a whole, basically, the perception of God represents primary and secondary existences. As I have displayed earlier on, that God is of primary existence and not of secondary existence isn't quite correct, the perception of God relates directly to oneness, a whole. This means the perception of God relates to both primary and secondary existences. You can now see how Christians have the idea that God created everything and rightfully so in my mind.

Primary Existence = God + non-creative

Secondary Existence = God + creative

This is how we create in our own right while existing in a secondary existence, only in a secondary existence can creation begin, and yes, end. The strange thing in all this is, neither the secondary or primary is above or higher in stature than other, only an ego in control would be able to perceive this in this way, in other words, divide......!!    

Various Beliefs of Ego

Written By Mathew Naismith

I've lost count in how many people I have come across that are disillusioned and confused in regards to the ego, this is after these people have followed various spiritual beliefs and practices. In certain cases, these people are now just as much if not more disillusioned and confused, so many beliefs contradict each other on this matter, which one is absolute?        

It's wise to be a aware that a controlling ego (egotism) will state which one is absolute over all other beliefs, any belief that is egotistically free, won't state which one is absolute over another. It's also wise to be aware that there is a big difference between ego and egotism, egotism being an ego in control, ego is just being. Each belief system is of the ego, it was created by ego, this means each and every belief system is of the ego to start with, basically, everything of creation is of the ego, however, not everything is of egotism.

If your not bias (egotistical) within your own beliefs, you will find the following various views from different beliefs quite interesting. They basically say the same thing even though the interpretation of ego varies in regards to certain beliefs. There seems to be a cohesive view that ego can give us the illusion of separation from, nothingness, God, zero point, oneness, inner self, our truer being and so on.

_____________________________

Zen

https://newearthpulse.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/zen-and-the-ego/

Extract: “The anitya doctrine is, again, not quite the simple assertion that the world is impermanent, but rather that the more one grasps at the world, the more it changes. Reality in itself is neither permanent nor impermanent; it cannot be categorized. But when one tries to hold on to it, change is everywhere apparent, since, like one’s own shadow, the faster one pursues it, the faster it flees. 

Hinduism

http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritual-practice/steps-of-spiritual-practice/how-to-reduce-ego/what-is-ego-definition/

Extract: From a spiritual perspective, ego means considering oneself to be distinct from others and God due to identification with the physical body and impressions in various centres of the subtle body. In short ego is leading our life as per the thinking that our existence is limited to our 5 senses, mind, and intellect and identifying with them to various degrees.

As per the science of Spirituality, our true state of existence is identification with the Soul or God-principle within us and living our day to day life with this consciousness. As the one and same God-principle exists within all, from a spiritual perspective there is unity in all Creation.

However, depending on the level of our ego, we identify with the God-principle within us, i.e. the Soul to varying degrees. If our ego is high, we identify less with the Soul or the God-principle within us.

Taoism

 http://personaltao.com/ego/

Extract: In Taoist practice, when one “sheds the bones” a Taoist will finally fully wash off all the glue that holds the spirit to the bones of our stories. However, until that point of full release, a Taoist allows ego to play a bit, as it’s part of our very nature. Instead at first a Taoist learns how to live their life without that sheep dog in control of our life.

Islam

 http://submission.org/Ego_Quran_perspective.html

Extract: [Quran 2:54] Recall that Moses said to his people, "O my people, you have wronged your souls by worshiping the calf. You must repent to your Creator. You shall kill your egos. This is better for you in the sight of your Creator." He did redeem you. He is the Redeemer, Most Merciful.

­­­­­­­­­­_____________________________

The following gives a more collective view, it also shows a Christian and Judaist viewpoint on this topic as well. 

_____________________________

http://positivetruth.com/tag/what-zen-buddhism-says-about-ego/

Extract: Understanding what we call ‘the ego’ will change how you see yourself and the world around you. Your mind has been programmed to believe that the ego is you, but in reality it is just an illusion that we use to help us function in our world. In a sense, the ego is what makes us feel separate from other people.

Even though we play much of our life through the lens of the ego, we are not the ego. We are sitting outside of the ego; a pure and whole individual. We are the observer. Although the ego is in no way the enemy, the ability to see the ego for what it is gives us a lot of power and enlightenment.

_____________________________

It would seem as soon as a belief system states it's absolutely right over all other beliefs, this belief has become egotistical, considering that ego is a separation from our truer being, how separated is a belief system that believes it's absolutely egotistically right over all other beliefs, it's absolute?

Let's put this in a Godly sense, how much of God is a person who categorically states their belief is absolute over all other beliefs? Considering the main consensuses of each belief states that ego can indeed separate ourselves from God, how truly of God is a person who states absolutes?

Let's put this in another way, how much of the inners self or nothingness is a persons when stating absolutes in relation to their own beliefs? Considering that absolutes within anyone's belief system is egotistical, how virtuous and exact is any absolute view in this case when they are themselves obviously showing no connection  to their truer being?

On numerous occasions I have had discussions with people following various beliefs, most people are open minded to one extent or another, others are absolute within their convictions. Even people who call themselves Buddhist, have spoken about absolutes for example, their is absolutely no God and soul, we are nothingness that is completely void of ego. As soon as you talk about absolutes, you are talking not just about ego but egotism. Is the view that absolutes are egotism? No, because again there are no true absolutes.

I should also state that I have talked to other people of Buddhism about other people who state they are Buddhist, but at the same time talk about absolutes. According to these people I've talked to, they are not true Buddhists. 

Now my view on ego is, all motion is ego, all excessive (extreme) motion is egotism. Oneness, zero point, God, nothingness, inner self and so on, which is in my mind our truer being, are motionless therefore are ego free. The closer we become our truer being, the less motion we express therefore the less of the ego we become.

As I have always said, motion is an expression of our truer being, God if you like. There is nothing wrong or right within this expression, it's how we express our truer being that defines how destructive or constructive we will be. If you wish to judge destruction as being wrong or negative, this is your will but any judgment like this is of the ego, therefore a further separation from our truer being. Is there anything wrong in this separation? No but one should be wised that the further we separate ourselves from this truer being, the more egotistical we become and the more destructive we become, the world around us at present is a good indication of this.

Ego can be a beautiful thing, egotism can be an ugly thing in accordance to it's obvious destructiveness. It's wise not to judge the Ego as you do egotism, this is obvious within it's observation.