Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts

Friday, 21 December 2018

Eastern and Western Philosophy

Written by Mathew Naismith

Stoicism is of Western philosophy where Zen is of Eastern philosophy, both philosophies are of a simular teaching, an indifference to pleasure or pain. All this means is that there is no desire of pain or pleasure, especially of pleasure in counteraction to pain for there is no balance created in such reactions. Yes, from imbalances a reality based on imbalances can be created where pleasure is intensely desired and often vigorously sought. This reminds me of the Roman Empire and the present Westernised Empire, where pleasure is vigorously sought and desired over all else.  

Both the Western philosophies of Stoicism and the Eastern philosophies of Zen are not of faith, even though Zen is of intuitiveness rather than reasoning as of Stoicism. Of course in saying that these philosophies are not of faith, one has to have faith in philosophies for philosophies to have any value. No matter what the teachings are, faith is needed in the teachings themselves for the teachings to have value and substance to begin with.

How many of us have faith in reasoning, where our reasoning is limited to what we are aware of at the time. We can only reason to the extent of our awareness, of course this is where philosophies like Zen come into there own, where intuition takes over where reasoning has left off. The same is with Abrahamic religions, where reasoning is limited to what we are aware of to what Abrahamic religions are not limited to. Religions period give us a sense and even an awareness beyond of what reasoning is limited to. In a lot of cases, reasoning is limited to materialism or three dimensional aspects. 

Basically, philosophies of Stoicism are limited to a reasoning process; this at no time makes philosophies like stoicism irrelevant. As what is taught through the teachings of stoicism, it is a teaching of an indifference to pleasure or pain, where pain or pleasure is not sought but simply occurs. In truth, teachings like Zen and Stoicism condition us to lesson the influence of pain thus often giving us more pleasure in any circumstance. At no time is pain or pleasure sought within these teachings, but most often pleasure can be the outcome of these teachings. Simply, it is what it is, no more, no less.
Extract: Alan Watts has an interesting take on an old, provoking thought-experiment: he asks you to imagine if you could ask God any question. You may ask, “what is the meaning of life?” God would simply reply, “the question makes no sense, you are asking what is the meaning of meaning. It is only you that can create meaning in this world.”
Disappointed in this answer, you may question further, “what is the question I should ask then?” Presumably, God would smile, and answer, “Ah, so you do want a problem?”
The simple fact of the matter is that nothing is out of place. It is simply human nature to create problems to solve.
Problems and dilemmas are pain creating, this is why we ask questions that are related to pain and don't ask questions that are not related to pain. Considering that human consciousness is conditioned to suffering pain, no wander we ask such questions when the answer is obvious to a person not conditioned to pain.
Don't get me wrong here, most often we will learn to deal with pain when in pain, pain is simply part of the process of not being in pain, but only if we learn to deal with pain instead of suffering or having a desire to escape from pain. To desire to escape from pain is a creation of pain for pain has created such desires, try to remember this. What human consciousness is conditioned to, is to suffer from pain instead of dealing with pain. However, imagine if the allied forces in World War two ran away from the pain of the axis forces instead of dealing with this pain, far more pain would have been inflicted or suffered. Of cause what created this pain to begin with was the conditioning to pain, otherwise Hitler would have stopped at the pleasure he gave to his fellow countrymen.  
In dealing with pain, at no time expect or desire not to be in pain, as the philosophy of Zen and Stoicism teach, an indifference to pleasure or pain, where desire has no place, even of the desire of pleasure over pain. You must be careful here though, that you don't seek or desire pain over pleasure, pain will naturally come when a lesson needs to be learnt as of our present reality. Yes, I have observed this myself, where people seek (desire) pain to learn from, avoid seeking pain for this reason as Buddha discovered.
Yes, we will suffer pain of a lost one or of being abused, what is the lesson to be learnt in this?
In the case of a lost one, to learn to live on after such a loss, even to a greater extent without feeling guilty of doing so; to learn that your life goes on and so does theirs. I often live for them as well which makes life more fulfilling for me.
As of abuse or neglect, don't try to escape this pain or desire or expect not to be in pain. The desire to feel pleasure again gives the pain more credence, more power and control over you. It is what it is and move on from this. I know of a person who was raped in their own house, every little noise in the house now utterly terrifies them. You must learn to have an indifference to pain as well as pleasure, anything else is an imbalance and of all imbalances, pain is created. Become aware that all imbalances create circumstances of the abuse of energy as a whole. To deny yourself the freedom from pain and pleasure is an abuse of energy caused by an imbalance.
In pain, I don't desire or expect pleasure but I also don't desire or expect to suffer from pain either. There is a neutral ground that can be created under any circumstance, where energy is influenced in harmony with. I could not think of anything more beautiful, accepting, of unconditional love and of oneness than this neutral ground.                               

Thursday, 28 June 2018

The Passion of Philosophy

Written by Mathew Naismith

Philosophy: The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics

There are of course other interpretations of philosophy; I however generally live by the interpretation above, of course this can be mistaken in thinking too much. The consensus is; there is simply no quietening of the mind within this kind of expression of philosophy. Considering that Buddhism is known as a philosophy, and the state that Buddha found himself in was of complete stillness, it is obvious philosophy can also quieten the mind.

So how does philosophy do this? Certain expression of philosophy frees you from the egos control. There is no more expression of a black and white mentality, negative and positive, bad and good, wrong and right, black and white, basically, everything becomes as one and is perceived as one. It's simply all a perception anyway, all separated perceptions simply become as one thus a neutralisation of the mind of all perceptions is created.

How I did this is explained in a reply I gave someone on a philosophy forum, this was in relation to philosophy itself.              

Philosophy, to me, is about free thinking void of the control of other ideologies and isms doctrines and dogmas. This is anything from religion to atheist materialism.

I love exploring the environment free from the dogmas of ideologies and isms, at the same time being free to use the concepts of ideologies and isms to explore this environment.

In dealing with people who restrict free thinking processes, I probably become a little too clinical within my philosophies. I am quite clinical when it comes to abuse period, either that be the restriction of free thinking, like the abuse of philosophy from certain groups, or mental and physical abuse.

Within this philosophy of true free thinking, I am able to explore the environment free from mental limitations. This allows people like me to observe parts of the environment other people are unable to observe I feel

I would not give up my free thinking for anything.

Also, after a number of rebuttals, not to do with the above mentioned:  

Sorry people, I often do this, I think way outside the square at times, this can be taken as an insult to some people, my apologies.

If you are unable to comprehend where I am coming from, simply ignore me, please. Very few people take head of what I say anyway and understandably so.

This is strange, I do have a lot of friends in real life who adore me, not sure why myself!! Maybe it's to do with my wife and not me!!     

Wednesday, 27 June 2018

Philosophical Freedom

Jean-Paul Sartre, French philosopher 

Written by Mathew Naismith

Philosophies of Lies and deceit
A vacant space
In the absence of truth
A spaceless space
No direction within
Simply vacant of truth and honesty
In this lays vacancy
A vacancy of mind
For in this vacancy
Truth is unable to exist
There is simply no substance
For without substance
Where is truth and honesty to abide
For in this vacant space
Honesty needs substance
A substance of truth and honesty
This is within itself
Is its beginning

MG Naismith

What this poem of mine refers to, is that truth and honesty are unable to be recognised thus often misunderstood in a philosophy of lies and deceit. Often quite deceptively to protect and harvest what comes from philosophies of lies.

I wrote the following to the questioning, is courage needed to express intellectual honesty? I was interacting on a philosophy forum and received hostility against proven truths and honesty, to me, the reason this occurred was obvious.    

Thinking about this more; the courage to see the lies and deception within ones own philosophies, is courageous no matter what the ism or ideology one follows.

Take note of the people who slam, for example, religion and its philosophies, you will note that they are themselves most likely of the philosophies of lies and deception. Example: When did truths and honesty supported by evidence become abuse and disdainful? When did facts and figures become of abuse and disdainful?

The answer seems to be when of and the protection of known lies and deceit. Any truth, especially proven truths to be true and of fact, will always be disdainful to any philosophies based on lies and deceit. Example: An OP can be noticeably deceptive within its intent but still be supported!!

Are facts and figures disdainful to the people of philosophies based on truth and honesty? Unlikely to any great extent.   

I have noticed the more facts and figures you support the truths you speak of, the more hostile some people get. Also notice that not all the people become hostile, why? They simply don't live by philosophies based on lies and deceit. It is very possible they may not know this themselves, actually, most often this is the case it would seem.

There is a lot of courage needed to tell the truth in ways other people don't want to hear them. If your philosophies are based on truth and honesty, you will always get a hostile rebuttal from the opposing camp.

Should an intellectual honesty take courage to express? It shouldn't but it does in today's reality.

Never chase truth and honesty within anything, for truth will come without effort once the philosophies of lies and deceit are put to rest.....MG Naismith

I chased truth and honesty in philosophy, there was little obvious truth and self-honesty to be found but in a few. Most people of the philosophies of truth and honesty will stay hidden, for they know what would occur otherwise. The reason I chased the truth in this manner, was to observe and become aware of the truth within the truth that philosophical lies and deceit exist within every corner of man, no matter of the isms or ideology followed.

A bit of self-honesty and truth goes a long way, to freeing ourselves from the bondages and limitations of the philosophies of lies and deceit.......MG Naismith

Thursday, 8 March 2018

Philosophy - Environmental Creations

Written by Mathew Naismith

Philosophy, as of any other thinking process, is influenced by the environment the philosophy is influenced by; this includes the knowledge and awareness that the   philosophy is based or influenced by. A wise philosopher will never see another philosophy created under another environment as being incorrect to theirs; it's simply a different form of correctness based on the environment a philosophy is created under.

A person I greatly respect, mainly due to them being able to think right outside the square, outside normal human conditionings, replied to me with the following in regards to my last post, "Atheism Is Quite Correct."

I wouldn't exactly say that some of your statements are clear and unambiguous.

For many people Christ was the greatest philosopher of all time because of His ability to explain spiritual truths in a way that everyone can easily understand.

Christ often used simple stories called parables to explain those truths using examples from nature like how a tree produces fruit or how the weeds and the wheat must grow together until the harvest.

He also used examples based on human nature and the interactions that occur between people like forgiveness and kindness.

My Reply
A very good point to bring up Jeff.

How often is Jesus messages misunderstood or not understood at all? As of any philosophy, expressing philosophy using a particular environment is fine to the people who can relate to that environment, what about the people who can't relate to that environment!!

I put a Cambodian lass under my wing, I looked after her. This lass tried to assimilate into our culture to the point of trying to become a Christian and comprehend Christianity, she simply couldn't because the doctrines of Christianity didn't relate to her Buddhist environment. As I explained to her, her incomprehensibility did not make Christian doctrines and beliefs incorrect, they were simply not correct for her within her present environment.              

I also find it difficult to explain the unexplainable, words are limiting in regards to explaining about a consciousness way beyond the explanation of words. A lot of my topics seem to go beyond the explanation of words at times.

If you keep your philosophies within certain limitations, as Jesus did, using your environment to explain what you are philosophising about is easy. Of course even this, as history shows, can be incomprehensible to people of a different environment.

Your environment dictates what is correct and incorrect to you, what is comprehensible and incomprehensible to you. The beliefs and doctrines that influence our comprehensibility is an environment that is most often bias. We will naturally express bias while influenced by a particular environment, this is human consciousness. How bias and incomprehensible are rich people to poor people's dilemmas? This is their environment which makes being poor incorrect. 

What I find interesting is that people of other cultures than a western based culture, comprehend my writings a lot easier than people of a western based culture. This is interesting because a lot of eastern philosophies include short stories that relate to the environment.

When I can or it is feasible or I think of it, I do use my environment to explain where I am coming from, as I have explained, I find this difficult to do at times.

Thanks for trying to assist me by the way Jeff, always appreciated.


I think Jeff wanted me to be more comprehensible on topics like this, explain myself in simpler ways and in ways that people relate to. If you can explain yourself in ways that people relate to, for example making reference to the source of all creation is less relative to most people than making reference directly to God, what you are explaining about will be more comprehensible. Trying to relay anything that other people in different environments are not conditioned to and comprehensible of is always going to be difficult.

Example: Explaining Christianity to a Buddhist or an atheist is going to be a lot harder than explaining about Christianity to a Christian and visa-versa, again it's all to do with the environment we are conditioned to.

When I say that atheism is correct in relation to there being no God, this is in relation to Buddhist (eastern) atheism. Once you reach pure awareness, what then defines a God when you are one with God, one with this state of pure awareness? However, the depiction or perception of a God, of this pure aware state, while in separation of this state of God, is to me paramount to our existence. There is simply no future in separation from this source no matter what you call it.

You can always explain yourself better so more people can comprehend what you are saying, what I actually focus on are the people who are able to comprehend me anyway. As I have been for a lot of people, conformation is always comforting; no matter how I explain myself these people will always comprehend where people like me are coming from.

People like me don't need to reach more people; we are simply conformation for a few people, not many people. I should also say it's a two way street, I have myself received conformation in the way I am thinking off of other people, it is the way it's meant to be.           

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

Wisdom and Philosophy

Written by Mathew Naismith

My wife and I were having breakfast out on our front porch this morning, as usual, and as usual we had birds of various varieties flying about in our garden. I  at one time noticed a fig bird just sitting there as if in contemplation, I then thought how many people actually sit within this same quietness as this fig bird. The fig bird has obviously had it's fill, feeding is motion, and now it's motionless, it's a life of perfect balance and harmony within an environment of motion. However, humans often don't balance out their life of motion with motionlessness, like the fig bird, who lives within it's natural environment not against it.

Motion: What human consciousness seems to have done, is the more motion it's expressive of, the less of this quietness and subsequent wisdom human consciousness became. It's strange, this is sound evidence within our own actions that wisdom is no longer a vital part of our being. While becoming more of motion through knowledge and intelligence, we at the same time destroyed any wisdom that we could find. This knowledgeable intelligent consciousness went out and deliberately destroyed any kind of wisdom that would question it's actions of degradation. Excessive motion on it's own can erode any wisdom a consciousness has, human consciousness went beyond this and deliberately tried to destroy wisdom and any related philosophy/philosopher who actually questions their own actions and beliefs.

It's as if we have gotten to a point in human consciousness, that we no longer question our own actions and beliefs from materialism to spirituality, we will however question other people's actions and beliefs but not our own.

A good example of this is what Kundalni energy experiences can create. We so often perceive that what Kundalini energy flows create, are the be and end all,  huge amount of motional and emotional love being one of these creations. I say creations because love is a motion, it's not motionless, anything of motion is created from another source. It's this source that created this love that is more of a be and end all, not what this energy creates. Materialism is exactly the same, what creates materialism? Degradation, a destruction or transformation of one energy to another form of energy creating a possession.

Before I go on I better put things in a more comprehensible perspective.

Wisdom and philosophy = timelessness + infinite + motionless + peace

Knowledge and intelligence = time + finite + motion + chaos

I should make it clear here that philosophy is a motion, it creates motion, this is how we are able to express this motionless wisdom into a motion thus assisting us to balance out excessive expressions of motion. However, philosophy used and obtained entirely through knowledge and intelligence, would put philosophy under the heading of motion, time, finite and a possible creator of chaos. It's wise to be aware that all motion is a creator of chaos in one way or another, maybe not to you or even someone else, but it's likely to create chaos/destruction to the environment around you in some way. It's wise to be aware that all motion creates a form of chaos in some sense.

It's actually natural for motion to create chaos, it' also natural for motionlessness to create peace. We might think that love, even when created through a Kundalini experience, isn't of this chaos. ask yourself honestly, what is this kind of love doing to people who don't love in the same way? It's causing them chaos and of course they will react or counter-react in accordance to this created chaos. All motion creates a form of chaos within the environment in some way, no matter how much of a be and end all it is, again, it's wise to be aware of this if we truly want to create peace on  Earth.

Foundation of Peace: Human consciousness has also created a most unusual reality, it's probably why so many souls have chosen to experience this kind of reality. We have a consciousness that assumes it's intelligent because of it's own knowledge and technological advancements. We also have this same exact self-deemed intelligent consciousness, expressing more motion than ever, while killing off anything else that would give this consciousness  balance and a  more peaceful existence. If you look back to any created golden age in human history, you will find that wisdom was the primary creator of such an age. Don't get me wrong here, knowledge and intelligence certainly played it's part but it was wisdom that was the foundations of these golden ages.

I am going to make a prophecy here, any nation of people, countrymen or otherwise, that bases their existence on wisdom, will be given an awareness that will protect them from any kind of ignorance. We so often do this on a personal level ourselves, however, what I am talking about here comes deep within the infinite itself. This especially includes protection from aliens who have crashed there transport on Earth. Think on this, how would a truly highly intelligent and spiritually connected being, crash their transport in any circumstances? It just couldn't occur.

Being wise doesn't mean we should just sit within our natural environment and do nothing else either, we are in a reality of motion and emotions, we are supposed to create motion, for an example, accumulating wealth. Accumulating wealth takes excessive amounts of motion, this amount of motion will often deplete or erode our own wisdom, there is nothing wrong or right in this. What we often don't do in this case is balance out this excessive motion with motionlessness, wisdom in other words. Everything within our environment is of motion, motion is naturally part of this kind of existence, what human consciousness is to ignorant of, is creating balance within he's own expressions of motion.

Final Thought: What do families, who are highly motional, try to aspire their children to be? Become a doctor or a lawyer for example. In ancient times of golden ages, it was better to aspire one of your chosen children to follow a path of wisdom, how many families do this these days, especially in Western minded countries? For such an intelligent consciousness, it still hasn't worked out why it's still in conflict!! The wealth of a family was measured in the wisdom it beheld, how do we measure wealth today?......

One thing to consider here, a good philosopher will look upon the self as the collective, this means it will in-turn question this collective as it has a right to question itself!!   

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

The Connection - Peace and Philosophy

Written by Mathew Naismith

Not many people can relate peace to philosophy, what is so peaceful with philosophical debates and seemingly endless questioning?

Self-Discovery: First of all, we know that philosophers like Socrates, Rumi, Confucius, Buddha, were constructive towards peace through better understanding of their environment and self-discovery, but do we also know that Jesus was also a philosopher, actually, everyone is a philosopher in their own right. In saying this, not all philosophers are constructive towards peace and better understanding, only philosophers who use wisdom as a base to their philosophy, rather than just knowledge/intelligence, are constructive towards peace.

I don't know of any philosopher who immediately used wisdom as their base for their philosophical views to start with, this only occurred when in self-discovery through interaction within their environment which gave them a better understanding of their environment. Is it wise not to try to understand your environment and other peoples environment? This is why many of these great philosophers, went out into their own and other people's environment, it's this interaction that seems to have given them wisdom.

This interaction with the environment as a whole, wasn't what actually in the end gave them a true sense of wisdom, it gave them a better insight to the external environment which gave them a sense of wisdom but not true wisdom. As of always, it was their inner self-discovery that gave them a true sense of wisdom, as soon as these people went inward into oneself, it was within this that gave them a true sense of wisdom. Basically as always, the answers are within, the external world is only a guide but it's a guide if used correctly. Incorrectly used, it's a deterrent and a creator of anything but peace.

Inner Peace: No philosopher who is onto self-discovery, fixates themself to a certain philosophical view or a certain type of philosophy being the be an end all. Any true philosopher will instruct you to find your own self-discovery, only in this will you find lasting inner peace.

In regards to Confucius and Socrates, these philosophers didn't truly find this inner peace in the end, this was due to failing to influence their environment enough to make any great difference within their own lifetime, only in the years following their demise did this occur. Finding this inner peace isn't the be and end all, if the environment you are in is in chaos, inner peace becomes but an ephemeral pleasure to be experienced, nothing more. As of any great philosopher, they want to encourage the world towards a better way of existing, sadly enough this isn't always accomplished within one lifetime.

I have the understanding that Jesus died in inner peace, knowing that he will make a difference in people's lives in a huge way for a lot of people, sadly, his teachings were corrupted and misused in various ways. Jesus for starters never wanted to be worshiped!!

Infinite Consciousness: No true philosopher will fixate themselves to any kind of ideological view or philosophical practice, this is because wisdom is infinite therefore so is consciousness as it's forever evolving. You see, philosophy isn't an exact science because, as any true philosopher knows, nothing stays the same and that not everything seems as it is even when proven to be so. Strangely, general science, like many religious practices, is fixated to certain perceptions and perspective, in saying this, other forms of science today seem to be breaking down these limitations.  

The main difference between general science and philosophy, is science is based on finite concepts of knowledge and intelligence, however, true philosophy is based on infinite concepts of wisdom. Knowledge gives us the intelligence to perceive their is nothing but a physical reality, wisdom on the other hand tells us there is more than physical realities, this is because wisdom is infinite, there are no limitations with the expressions of wisdom.  Knowledge relies on the five sense, wisdom relies on all senses, used in balance, each will enhance the other. You can see why human consciousness void of wisdom is limited and is limiting it's own consciousness. A limited consciousness is a consciousness of  ignorance, of cause as always, only in ignorance can a consciousness destroy itself, there is no peace to be found in this.

As of always, any true philosopher will attract a huge amount of ridicule, of course such expressions of ridicule states one is on the right path to a true sense of peace. You see, it's not the philosophy that upsets people, it's people's own reaction to philosophy that upsets themselves. Very few people on Earth like to truly look within themselves, this is exactly what philosophy does, within this, we will find true inner peace, remembering, all the answers are within as always.   

Monday, 12 September 2016

The Rise of Wisdom

Written by Mathew Naismith

For anyone translating this post, the following quote is as above.

If everyone was of wisdom,
there would no conflict for
only can conflict exist in a
consciousness void of wisdom.

Wisdom is seemingly likened to energy except like energy, wisdom can't even be transformed. All energy can be transformed, however, no energy can be destroyed, it's then funny to think wisdom can't even be transformed, is wisdom as I have always said it be to, of the infinite? Yes, you can misinterpret wisdom but you can't transform wisdom, for once wisdom is expressed like energy, it is unable to be transformed for wisdom is of all ages.

It would seem that wisdom doesn't have the same characteristics to energy, wisdom doesn't even seem to be under the same laws and principles of energy. Being that energy is of all expressions (motion), it's strange to think that wisdom, when expressed, doesn't follow the same principles as energy.

When you think on this, is energy that creates certain forms of all ages? No, for an example, did vehicles or horseless motorised carriages exist a thousand years ago? Did the entire universe exist before the big bang? Now consider this, did wisdom?

Even though human consciousness has tried to destroy wisdom, wisdom always prevails. The resurgence of the teachings of Confucius in China, is a good example of this. The same exact form of energy Confucius expressed, still exists as it did in Confucius's time even after it's presumed destruction. The teachings of Confucius weren't even transformed.

Let's also take a look at Buddha and Socrates, these people, as well as Confucius, weren't just expressing philosophy, they were also expressing wisdom. It's important here not to get confused with thinking all philosophy is of wisdom, philosophy can also be based on knowledge/intelligence void of wisdom. The reason why people like these were noticeable compared to numerous other philosophers and mystics, is that their philosophy became primarily based on wisdom. Jesus is another prime example of this and so was Rumi.

It is quite obvious that wisdom itself can't be transformed or destroyed , the philosophy of wisdom is ageless, but what about wisdom existing before the creation of the universe itself.

The following links indicate wisdom existences before the creation of the universe, basically, before consciousness was even expressed.

Consider this, philosophy is of time, it's of the finite, why does wisdom when expressed in conjunction with wisdom, become indestructible or even transformable? Why also is one philosophy more compelling and memorable than to other forms of philosophy? It seems that one form of philosophy is based on the finite, while other forms are based on the infinite, infinite being of timelessness, a consciousness not of time.

Am I making reference that a philosophy based on wisdom, is beyond a consciousness based on time? Absolutely.....

Take a close look at all these great philosophers, now look at the time they spent in silence. Don't get me wrong here, not everyone who spends time in silence becomes instantly of this infinite wisdom, in actually, people can spend a life time in silence and still not be able to connect with this infinite wisdom. The difference is, once these people dropped pre-perceptions, meaning, detaching themselves from human fixated attachments, they were then able to connect to this infinite wisdom.

No one who is fixated to any kind of  ideology or ism, is truly able to connect to this infinite wisdom, a wisdom that was around before the creation of the universe. Yes, anyone who is knowledgeable is able to recite an already expressed philosophy, but are able to connect to this kind of wisdom. Of course anyone who is fixated to an ideology or ism, will disagree with this as always. The controlling ego just doesn't want to let go of a fixation.

In saying all this, it's wiser to follow an already expressed wisdom than to not express any kind of wisdom at all......Mathew G

Not everyone will be able to connect to this infinite wisdom, motion takes too much of our time to be able to make this kind of connection. Our best bet is to follow an already impressed, established wisdom, in saying this, it's even better when we make our own connection but again, motion often takes up too much of our time to make this connection. In all, we must be appreciative and accepting of the wisdom that has already been expressed as a motion.

It's funny to think that no truly dogmatic forceful ideology or ism likes the presence of a true expression of wisdom, as our past philosophers and mystics have discovered in their own lives. Such an energy force will always try to destroy this kind of wisdom if we don't protect it from such atrocity and lunacy. As I have said for some time now, only in ignorance can a consciousness destroy/destroy itself.

Please once again, do not take anything that I have stated here as gospel or of utter truth. 

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?

"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. 

Saturday, 5 July 2014

Philosophical Views and the Sciences

Written by Mathew Naismith

Because I’m also have an interest is the sciences, I converse with a number of science minded people, unlike myself I should say for the main reason I’m also into spirituality, philosophy, history and psychology. Most science minded people are into science and more science, it would seem all else is irrelevant for the main reason no other ideology is more logical and correctly accurate. Does this not sound simular to other dogmatic ideologies?

Religion can be dogmatic like this but science minded people just won’t see these similarities between their dogmatism and religious dogmatisms. Thank God not all science minded and religious people are this dogmatic within their ideological views and beliefs.  You might ask, where am I going with this? It seems to matter not what ideology you are into, if you are dogmatic about these beliefs you are not going to see any other view or want to change these views with the times.  Almost all ideologies have changed in time in some way, they have evolved however you still get people who are dogmatic within these old views and hang onto them no matter what.

If an old ideology still works why change it? You don’t but what you do is accept other ideological views that have kept up with the times.  Just because an old ideology still works doesn’t mean it’s the be and end all as I will explain further using science as an example.

Most science minded people do not like anyone pointing out where modern day science evolved which was from, philosophy and mysticism, obviously for a very good reason. They don’t want their ideological views assimilated with any ideology that isn’t logical and correctly accurate as there’s.  Again this mentality sounds so much like Dark Age dogmatic religion it’s not funny.

The question is now, how accurate is modern day science? It’s more precise than mysticism and philosophy but does this make it more accurate? I don’t know of any scientific endeavour that didn’t first of all evolve from a theory and a theory is a philosophical view/ hypothesis.  At this point of a theory we are using inductive reasoning which is of course what philosophy is about.

When does a theory become fact or accurate? When we use deductive reasoning to test a theory to become accurate/fact or not.  Deductive reasoning gives us more accuracy which is what modern day science people are about; to them this is what gives a theory a logical conclusion.  

For a logical conclusion to be made first it take a philosophical view to make a deductive reasoning from. If we only deductively reasoned we would have no theories to make such deductive reasoning from in the first place, in other words to give us this logical conclusion we first needed an illogical philosophical view.  We should remember here that nothing is logical unless proven to be truly accurate so when a theory is still a theory it’s still classed as being illogical however you can have a theory that is logical in content. In this case, a theory being logical or not, depends on one’s own perception of what theory is logical and what theory isn’t. How accurate would modern day science be without theories/philosophical views?  It wouldn’t be because it just wouldn’t exist, it needs theories/philosophical views for modern day science to exist.  

Modern day science endeavours can’t become accurate without inaccurate assumptions, what if these assumptions where wrong in the first place? For a good example of this, many science minded people believe/assume/theorise that the universe was created through a certain process like the big bang which by the way is only theoretical.  What if this theory is inaccurate, would that not make everything else that was created through this big bang theory inaccurate as well?  All science is really basing all proven science facts on an inaccuracy therefore science itself isn’t an exact science. 

Science has never been an exact science and to evolve in time like any ideology should never be deemed as an exact ideological view giving us facts instead of perceived facts.  Every ideology needs to give itself room to evolve, modern day science for many isn’t doing this because they deem it as an exact science, it’s the be and end all. The funny thing is science, in it’s many forms from when it evolved from philosophy and mysticism, has always changed with the times. Take mysticism, mysticism evolved into alchemy and then into modern day chemistry.  Look at modern day science, it evolved from basic science to many forms of physics today which a lot of science minded people denounce because it’s evolving in time.  Before DNA became known, if you went up to a scientist and started talking to them about DNA they would have just laughed at you because back then it couldn’t be proved. Science today has evolved to know better than to laugh at such things these days but it still laughs at anything that can’t be proven.

Just imagine if we all took this dogmatic stance and laughed off everything that couldn’t be proven today, we just wouldn’t evolve because it’s through these theories and philosophical views we have evolved, history proves this time and time again. New age spirituality/consciousness is very much like this, it’s full of philosophical ideological views but without these views we just won’t evolve.  

Yes to evolve as a species we need to push and pull, push old ideological views away to pull in new ideologies. This gives us reactions from this pushing and pulling effect which we have always done as a species.  The effect this is going to give us depends on if we are holding onto old ideologies that don’t fit within these new ideologies, the reaction from this is usually conflictive and again human history shows this time and time again.  The way around this is to accept these new ideologies and philosophies which is done by ridding ourselves of the controlling ego, once we drop the controlling ego acceptance isn’t going to be a problem.  If we can’t do this we are best to stop pushing and pulling altogether.  

Friday, 16 May 2014

Why Wisdom is Flawed

Written by Mathew Naismith

The following is an extract from a discussion between me & another person on the subject of wisdom.  The discussion started off querying a supposition of who you would follow on a path, a person with a map which shows many dangers along this path or a person who leads you along a much easier path without a map.  The question eventually came, “would a wise person follow a person with a map showing many dangers ahead or would they follow the other person along a much easier path without a map?” I chose the map.  

I'm thinking it was the unharnessed intelligence using science and technology IE lack of wisdom

Wisdom is forged and proven sound by time...that's kind of how we know it to be wise.

Yes I agree Hfactor, it's the way we used that wisdom once we found intelligence.

Is this a fault of this wisdom in not being wise enough to stop this misuse in the first place? 

Wisdom to me stems from philosophy & mysticism; philosophy gave us intelligence where mysticism gave us this connection to the inner self/God.  What actually went wrong?

Intelligence took over from philosophy & religion/churches took over from mysticism, how wise is wisdom? 

Wisdom is only as good as the philosophy & mysticism used, others would say it's only as good as the knowledge & experiences one obtains, either way wisdom is flawed if we are not wise enough to realise that wisdom is flawed in the first place by not being aware of these flaws in the first place.

To me this stems back to wisdom being at fault.

Yes I know this is flimsy but plausible to me.

This is only a philosophical view of mine, it’s certainly not gospel. 

Sunday, 25 August 2013

Beautiful Spiritual Philosophy

Written by Mathew Naismith

Recently I came across a beautiful person who’s seems to always quote beautiful philosophy about life from many people so I thought I would gracefully share her with you today.  “Within sharing we have opened up new doors that where once closed through selfish designs”….Love Mathew

The good thing about philosophy is it doesn’t have to be of fact & logic but just of logical thought for in each philosophical view there is always logic. Faith believe it or not is also of logic to those who believe that faith is binding in bringing us together as one, what could be more logical than bringing us all together, “united we stand, divided we fall”.  

I thought I would share a recent discussion that I & another person had with this lovely lady as follow:

Zen Message of the Week: "If you love life, don't waste time, for time is what life is made up of." ~Bruce Lee Submit your own Zen Message at:

Sue Rumack • Is there a difference between placing your energies on make work, time filling activities as an avoidance technique AND quiet contemplation and reflection without an attached activity? Both could be seen as wasting time.

Moon H. Cho • None of those activities are wasting time if you are spiritually happy and growing during the process.

Sue Rumack • agreed

G'day Moon
So apt, time is indeed wasted without the love of life however some like to waste others peoples time therefore life as we have seen so often in human history. Grow strong grow wise!!

Moon H. Cho • Mathew... This is a good point. Unfortunately, others wasting your time is part and parcel of life, so I try to have it minimized and surrender to it when it inevitably happens.

Mathew Naismith • Yes, don't fight it, accept it for what it is & move on but some of us haven't got the wisdom to do this sadly enough.

By not accepting this &/or ignoring it is non-accepting which denotes conflict however if we have the wisdom to accept then move on we are for no longer in conflict & fear of it's return.

Many people denounce the ego & have a fear of being of the ego again but if you accept it first one never has a fear of such things again & the ego within this process of acceptance will never come again as it was, automatically, I believe.

I do love your philosophy Moon, it's beautiful.

Spiritual philosophical views pertain to life itself not to any factual views usually but all philosophy pertains to logical thinking, we tend to put logics in relation to fact only but that isn’t actually the case.  “For there to be wonder one must wonder about what there is to wonder about in the first place for without this wonderment no logical explanation can be found to entice one to wonder”….Love Mathew. We tend to pertain logics to fields like science & law for instance but for one to wonder about being of faith one would need to wonder in logical form for there to be such wonderment to entice one towards such fields. “We need not separate logic from faith for in this can there only be further separation”…..Love Mathew. Spirituality & faith isn’t about separation but togetherness & oneness, because we perceive logic as being of certain fields we separate this from our beliefs & faiths as it presumably seems like an opposing field of thought & action but in this thought alone are we practicing in separation & division.   

Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
Albert Einstein

Thursday, 15 August 2013

Faith, Mysticism & Philosophy to Science pt2

Written by Mathew Naismith

I thought I would share a few comments from a post titled Faith, Mysticism & Philosophy to Science from Google community.

From Pedro

I don't think an atheist would have just flat-out reject fire. I believe that one such man/woman would simply conclude that he/she has no way of explaining the phenomenon.

Now, something that is a very common theme in all of humanity is our inward instinct to want to know everything. Our brain, by its nature, doesn't like not knowing everything. If we can't deduce a plausible solution, we make one up.

Besides, as a caveman/woman, I would just be thankful that the fire existed, because our ability to control fire is what led us to become what we are today.

G’day Perdro

So what's the difference between fire & God or faith? Atheists don't accept there being a God so with the same logic they wouldn't accept fire either, they couldn't if they used the same logical thinking process, it's logically impossible. 

What they did use was faith, faith within the fire without being able to logically understand how it was & how it worked so what's the difference between that & a God or faith of today?

I'm a spiritually aware agnostic if I was going to give what I believe a label which makes me a little more open minded to different perceptions than most atheists so I can open my mind up to more possibilities than a closed minded atheists obviously.

From Ben

Logic points to people creating religion to explain what they don't understand. I don't see how an atheist caveman's reaction to fire has any connection. I'm sure the caveman(atheist or theist) would think fire was magic and would keep a cautious distance. Maybe they might think it's a message from a higher life form. Again, logic points to magic being the answer when the answer is unclear. Some of us will reserve judgement until more facts are in... Others will blindly cling to the first answer they hear. 

G’day Ben

We don't understand the human brain to it's fullest extent but that's not of religion & neither is the universe because we can't even agree in how it was first created & what about everything else we don't understand about it.

If we used the same logical deductive reasoning that atheists use today that we have with God or faith the cave man fire wouldn't exist but it does obviously because we can see it but an atheists couldn't accept this because it's not of any logic within their awareness or knowing. This same concept is used to formulate an idea that God can't exist or that faith is delusional today.

God or what I call consciousness collectively or not is like the fire, it exists because we exist, in other words we are proof of a creative consciousness or God exists, just because we can't logically give it definition yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

A thousand years ago there was no way we could ever take flight because that was logically impossible at the time. Logic changes with our conscious awareness however some logic like atheist logic hasn't by the looks of it.  If it's not logical at the time it can never exist, strange atheist concepts I have to admit however the concepts of agnosticism are quite different.  

Faith, Mysticism & Philosophy to Science

Written by Mathew Naismith

I’ve been having quite an interesting discussion with an atheist lately in how hypocritical atheism can be depending on the dogmatic attitude of some atheists & how it is also of a belief but mostly how flawed the beliefs/concepts/theories or whatever you want to call them are.  Some atheists think if it isn’t of logic it can’t be proved so it can’t have happened or it was a delusion of some kind. Where did logical thinking & science derive from? Faith, mysticism & philosophy, this is the way we were thinking before logic & science thought became thought but we still evolved from living in caves & foraging for food, how did we evolve without logic at first?

Below is part of my reply to an atheist that can’t or won’t see that the beliefs of atheism are flawed & in fact they think they aren’t beliefs at all but if you can’t prove something without a doubt it’s not fact so if it’s not fact it must be of a belief, no one can prove or disprove God doesn’t exist, this is a funny argument coming from a spiritually aware agnostic as myself.

G’day Paul
I experienced from quite a young age phenomena that science can’t logically explain as yet but it doesn’t make it delusional or unreal Paul just because science can’t logically prove something, this is small minded thinking. A thousand yrs ago people knew it was impossible for humans to ever gain flight or that we would ever have motorised vehicles, just because it wasn’t logical back then doesn’t make it illogical period Paul, this is a lame way of thinking Paul & thank God we have foresighted thinkers because if we all thought like atheists back in the cave man days that is exactly where we would still be obviously because nothing could be proven logically back then especially by science there for we wouldn’t have evolve through lack of logical proof. This way of thinking that everything has to be logically proved before implemented Paul is utterly flawed!!

How did we evolve from the caves without logic Paul? It was through faith & eventually science was formed from faith, philosophy & mysticism, now this is fact Paul as this actually happened & without logic.

You obviously haven’t experienced any genuine spiritual phenomena Paul that can’t be explained as yet by science but most of us here have, it doesn’t make us wrong or delusional like you keep trying to say. Just because it’s scientifically illogical doesn’t make it delusional or unreal Paul it just makes it unprovable at this point in time to people who only think logically. Most of us here think outside the logic square which to me denotes foresighted thinking.

If we were all born atheists & had the thinking capability of an atheist back in the cave man days would have we accepted fire? We couldn’t because we had no logical understanding or awareness in how fire existed. I could see an atheist just putting out the fire because there was no logical proof of its existence & this is no different with the existence of God or a creative consciousness. The argument would be of course from an atheist is, “we can see the fire exists but we can’t of a God &/or consciousness”, what are we & of all of creation, we are God &/or consciousness. Just like the fire it exists & just like the fire in the cave man days it still exists without logical proof for the main reason we can neither logically prove nor disprove such things just like fire in the cave man days so yes I can see atheists back then putting out the fire.

All I can say is thank god our ancestors back then didn’t think like some of us do today, we would have never evolved & this is why the beliefs of atheism is flawed, it can’t possibly exist without logic. We didn’t have the logical understanding of such things back then but we did have faith & from faith  mysticism & philosophy evolved & from faith, mysticism & philosophy science was created & evolved so really we have a lot to thank faith for. So the big question here is, since we have evolved from cave man days of faith to logical thinking do we need faith any longer?  Logic gives us one thought perception or mode of thought but faith gives us another which of course proved handy in our evolutional thought process & perception for without faith we obviously wouldn’t have evolved & I don’t think it’s any different today.

The related link is shown below:

Friday, 24 May 2013

The World of True Spiritual Acceptance pt.9


Written by Mathew Naismith


This part of true spiritual acceptance is going to look at desires again but in a more positive sense & I will theorise upon this in regards to our needs by collating the importance of  the need for both desires & needs to influence us at the right time in human history so we may evolve.

Before I go on I better explain the difference & the cohabitations between needs & desires. Generally needs are of acceptance & non-conflictive & desires are of non-acceptance & conflictive however there are times they work as one.
Needs & desires are at times in opposite reaction to each other but at other times they are in unison & while this action & reaction is going on we are evolving as I will explain further under the appropriate headings.

hidingEvolving Through Different Thought Modes: Ask yourself would have we evolved if we just catered for our needs & the answer would have to be a flat no because to evolve one has desires to be better in some way, to just cater for one’s needs all we would be doing is living off the land as hunter & gatherers but were we supposed to evolve in this way?  The only way for a human to evolve is through desire to be more aware & knowing of one’s environment & self which of course makes us more conflictive & the more desiring we became the more conflictive we are, this doesn’t sound to positive but it is as I will explain further.

As I said if we just catered for our needs we could have just stayed as hunter & gatherers in a semi pristine environment but man’s makeup isn’t built that way, it would have been nice in one way to keep our world free of man’s toxic destructive way but that wasn’t going to be the case as I believe we have come here to evolve & evolve we did through the only means we had, desire & the associated conflicts to such desires.  It’s funny to think we have used conflicts to evolve but if you looked at it most of man’s advancements have come from conflicts like penicillin but in saying this things like penicillin was also a need so our needs & desires obviously coexist for us to evolve, what this is saying is to evolve our desires have also become our needs.

Our desires & related conflicts have allowed us to evolve through history to build base system of knowledge for us to evolve to the extent we are today, it’s funny to think the only way we could have evolved is through conflicts. I know a lot of spiritually aware people are going to say that we could have just chosen to evolve through spiritual knowing which would have diverted us around having such conflicts to evolve from but we would have evolved quite differently because it’s the mode of thought that makes us what we are & spirituality is but anther mode of thought. We have chosen to evolve this way for whatever reason maybe to experience physical existence in its rawest form who really knows but the thing is we obviously chose to evolve for whatever reason in this way, it was the way it was meant to be obviously.

mode of thought (plural modes of thought) The way in which a person tends to think based on experiencebeliefslearning and reason.

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERAThe Right Timing: I’m going to theorise here & say that the mode of thought of desiring was a process that was needed for us to advance enough to the stage we are at now; it was all a part of the process as I will try to explain.

The thought mode of desiring, (consumerist materialism), has grown to a point that most of everybody on this planet accept for true spiritualists & the odd tribes people desire more or a better existence through consumerist materialism, this mode of thought has become epidemic for a very good reason & that reason is not just for our own pleasure but to advance enough technologically so we can now stop desiring & just tend to our needs as we once did as hunter & gatherers.  I’m going to theorise & say to evolve any further we must learn from our past because for us to go on any further in our desiring destructive ways is only going to end up disastrous for us.

To evolve takes more than one principle of mode of thought but many & many we did have throughout human history, the right timing is when to know when to change modes of thought to evolve even further.  Why has spirituality taken off with so many especially in the west at this precise time, has it got something to do with timing or is it just a coincident? Nothing in human history is just coincidence as it’s all in the timing of such changes in modes of thought which is influenced by conscious changes throughout human history.


The Natural Process: In all as a human species we chose to evolve through modes of thought that were going to make us more conflictive & the more we desired the more conflictive we became, I’m theorising that it was a natural process we had to go through to build up a technological know how enough so we can cater for all our needs, yes it has been detrimental & conflictive towards ourselves & our environment but that is just the part of the process in evolving in such away. We chose to be human & to evolve as a physical species hopefully not destroying ourselves in the process.  It is probably a good time to enumerate here that everything is of the spiritual world including physical existence so it makes sense that nothing we do is not spiritual as everything that exists is of the spiritual therefore everything we do is of the natural process of evolving. I know a lot of spiritually aware people are going to disagree with this saying our spirit true selves are all loving so how can something awful be a part of our spirit?  But love is a human emotion not a spirit emotion, our true spirit selves doesn’t have or choose to have so called good or bad emotion as this would define conflict & our true spirit selves isn’t conflictive however having modes of  thought gives us humanism therefore humanistic emotions.  We have a huge array of modes of thought & there related emotions to live by that make life what it is, we have the ability to choose what mode of thought to live by but as I said before conscious changes can & do influence us in one direction or another which also is a part of the natural process.  To have chosen let’s say a spiritual mode of thought in the first place we wouldn’t have evolved as species & experience the good & bad of physical being as we would have just tended to our needs not our desires which of course isn’t a bad way to live either.

Our desires as well as our needs have been fundamentally vital for the development of a species & our conflictive modes of thought have given us human advancements to the stage now that we have become quite intellectually knowledgeable & I will theorise again to the extent that we can now live for our needs instead of living for our desires which is far less conflictive if we desire it to be or has it become a need so we don’t wipe ourselves of the face of the Earth?

The link below takes a look at modes of thought in a more detailed philosophical way than I have presented here in this post, it’s certainly worth a read in my philosophical view.