Thursday, 19 March 2015
Written by Mathew Naismith
This interesting question came up in a conversation I am presently a part of, in my mind this question should be asked the other way around, “Are we failing humanity?” This of course poses another question if indeed we are failing humanity, “How are we failing humanity?”
In the same conversation the following was stated, "The very existence of God too, rests with our Faith and Belief system only." In my mind I think the following replies I gave might just give us an idea why we feel humanity is failing us. I should be honest here, I don’t follow a religion nor do I exclude any part of consciousness as being unworthy, all of what is, is worthy in one way or another to me.
I think you are still missing the point here, God, Jesus, Buddha and so on don't actually represent human concepts and beliefs, they actually represent an actual conscious state, it's man who has given this conscious state concepts and beliefs that is amiss here, not the belief in God or Jesus.
Like I said, it's this conscious state of God, Jesus and Buddha that have given rise to concepts and beliefs not the other way around.
Can we do without concepts and belief in a reality of duality? Not if we are ignorant, however this would be quite different if we were aware that all of what is, is consciousness, God's, Jesus, Buddha consciousness, instead of just a concept or a belief.
Religion, science, humanity, social order and so on are all influenced and created by concepts and beliefs only because we are ignorant to what is really behind all our concepts and beliefs.
What I am saying is God isn't man or man's concepts and beliefs but consciousness as a whole, saying that God is just a faith or a belief isn't quite true, this is man's perception of what this God's consciousness is and represents.
Yes, religion has stuffed this up by doing as you are doing, seeing this consciousness just as a faith and/or a belief when it represents a lot more than that. To help ourselves, we need to get past this kind of mentality in misjudging that God just represents a faith and/or a belief, to me it’s far greater than that, Jesus and Buddha were good indications of this but for some reason, probably through disdain brought about by misjudgements, most of us missed this.
I see where you are coming from, you seem to be looking at this through other people’s eyes in relation to God, to these people who are unaware, God represents faith and/or beliefs when it goes much deeper than that, however, within this perception, we just can’t say God is only representative of faith and/or beliefs, this is what I am saying. What connects all religions isn’t faith, doctrines, concepts or beliefs, it’s what God’s consciousness actually represents, pure consciousness void of faith, doctrines, concepts and beliefs. Within this God’s consciousness, there is no separation of the collective, in other words God’s consciousness represents a complete wholeness void of any separation of consciousness.
The following reply of mine was in direct response to the question, “Is Humanity Failing Us?
Is humanity failing us or are we failing humanity through our bias judgements like with religion and God for example?
I should state I don't myself follow any religious order or doctrines and I don't believe in a God of man, actually I try to avoid other people's ideological concepts and beliefs altogether, why? Because I know they take me away from knowing that everything in existence comes from consciousness, God's consciousness if you like.
So what do I follow? Anything that isn't encumbered by ideological concepts and beliefs, anything that teaches that everything within existence is of one source which we call God, not numerous sources of consciousness. Ideological concepts and beliefs separate this whole consciousness up into smaller parts of this whole conciseness which we call a reality of duality. I try to avoid this and the best way to avoid this is to avoid continually separating ideological concepts and beliefs, in other words by not just seeing these ideological concepts and beliefs as just ideological concepts and beliefs but a whole consciousness. All we are doing through misjudgements is separating consciousness even more I feel.
This is why I look at this reality of duality as a jigsaw puzzle, at the moment it’s segregated by our individual concepts and beliefs as in Fig 1, this is because we see our own concepts and beliefs as being different to everybody else’s when in fact they are connected as fig,2 illustrates. Fig, 2 represents connectedness of this fragmentation of separate concepts and beliefs, it’s no longer separated but all connected through knowing all of what is, is as one through one source of consciousness as the completed jigsaw, fig, 2, illustrates.
So basically what I am saying is, the reason we feel humanity is failing us, or why we are failing humanity, is because of our separateness when there truly is no separateness, all our concepts and beliefs are whole as fig, 2 illustrates in my mind, it’s a collective consciousness. We should be so grateful for being a part of such a consciousness but you can only feel grateful if you see it as a collective consciousness, not a divided chaotic consciousness.
PS. It has been pointed out that I have a number of miss-spelt words within my blog, this actually isn’t the case. I’m spelling my words in accordance with the Australian spelling standards, not in accordance with the US spelling standards, this is my choice.
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
Written by Mathew Naismith
I’m going to start this post off with a very important question, remembering the answer always formulates the questions not the other way around within a reality of duality.
Is it the ideological concepts and beliefs that create conscious states or is it the conscious states that create the ideological concepts and beliefs? This is an important question for us to know remembering there is only one true conscious state; all other conscious states are created from ideological concepts and beliefs.
Non-duality = timelessness + stillness +answers + dharma +one conscious state
Duality = time + action reaction +questions + karma + various conscious states
Let’s use meditation as an example here, to meditate we have to focus to quieten our mind and to focus we use certain concepts and beliefs, depending on the ideology used, to meditate. These concepts and beliefs used determine the type of meditation we will experience; this seems to be obviously saying that conscious states like meditation are brought about by certain concepts and beliefs depending on the ideology!!!
This is interesting, why doesn’t everyone have the exact same experiences while meditating? This is simple; the ideology/thoughts/philosophy we use determines our experiences, this produces a unique conscious state so it would certainly seem that concepts and beliefs create conscious states!!
Meditation is a certain conscious state which is determined by the ideology we use, this works quite fine in a reality of duality but what about non-duality?
It of course doesn’t work, there is no various conscious states produced because there is only one conscious state, within this state, it’s (this) conscious state that creates concepts and beliefs within realities of duality. Concepts and beliefs don’t actually create conscious states; all they do is influence (the) conscious state to produce various experiences, they don’t actually create them.
Fig,1 is a good illustration of our consciousness, like a jigsaw, it’s made up of various pieces and each piece represents different concepts and beliefs, for example, Buddhism and science, these all come together to form a bigger picture. Now you might think this bigger picture is non-duality because it’s complete, it’s whole and is as one but it’s never complete because this bigger picture is always only one part of an even bigger picture as explained in a previous post, so what actually represents non-duality? Fig, 2 is representative of non-duality, note there are no actual definable jigsaw pieces, this is because non-duality isn’t made up of various pieces, it’s whole.
Now in duality if we keep thinking it’s the concepts and beliefs that create conscious states, we will stay in a reality of duality even after our demise, however there is absolutely nothing wrong with this for within this we experience all of what consciousness is or what we have deemed God is. If on the other hand you at the soul level wish to no longer experience conciseness in this way, all you have to do is truly realise that it’s conscious states that create concepts and beliefs, not the other way around. Take Jesus and Buddha for example, they represented a conscious state not concepts and beliefs, these concepts and beliefs of religion where created from this conscious state. It is quite clear here why religion hasn’t worked the way it should have, religion works on concepts and beliefs not a conscious state as Jesus and Buddha exemplified.
Where does this leave meditation for example within a reality of duality, is it truly created by a conscious state or is it the concepts and beliefs that create the conscious state of meditation? In truth it’s never the concepts and beliefs that create a conscious state, this perception of concepts and beliefs creating conscious states are only brought about by thinking in duality, this isn’t truly what is happening. There is truly only one conscious state; every other conscious state is created from this one conscious state in reality of duality. You can see why so many people see realities of duality as an illusion; there is truly only one state of consciousness!!
Well not really, because non-duality isn’t defined by time, it’s of timelessness, everything has always existed and if everything has always existed, realities of duality can’t be true illusions but we can be delusional mainly because of our lack of awareness of this one conscious state always creates concepts and beliefs not the other way around. The delusion is we think concepts and beliefs create conscious states in other words when they don’t.
So what’s the significant of knowing this other than consciousness creates concepts and beliefs?
You can exist in a reality of duality but at the same time realise that all concepts and beliefs come from one consciousness, this allows one to realise that every concept and belief is really of one consciousness not individual conscious states. The significants of this is you become a lot more accepting of all other concepts and beliefs other than your own; this in turn will obviously give us more harmony and peace. It all comes down to our mentality either it be egotistically controlled or not, remembering every different concept and belief was egotistically created, what other trait would separate consciousness into small jigsaw pieces?
Sunday, 25 January 2015
Written by Mathew Naismith
I think this is important to bring forth, it’s important not to judge another religions, other spiritual practices and concepts and any other ideology as being unworthy especially in relation to our own, who are we to truly judge such things?
Each person has their own path and their own space even though we are on the same journey, what seems to be causing conflicts is other people judging other ideologies as being inferior to their own. This at times can induce us to become extremist within our own ideology; this can in turn induce us to force our own ideologies (space) onto others especially when we see our own ideological concepts as being the be and end all, the absolute truth and most worthy above all else. Doesn’t this these days sound familiar??
Is the problem within the ideological concepts themselves or is it within the people expressing such ideological concepts?
We often judge that other ideological concepts are this that and the other making the people of such concepts unworthy in same way in our eyes, however, can an ideological concept exist without such people following such concepts? These concepts need people to create them and then follow them before they become influential to us; it’s the people who are the concepts not the concepts who are the people!! Yes, these ideological concepts and doctrines influence us because we allow such concepts to do so; the emphasis is on us not the ideological concepts and doctrines.
How many Muslims are not extremists within their ideological concepts? Just because a few Muslim extremists are trying to force their own ideological principles (space) onto others, does this mean Islamic ideological concepts are extreme or does this infer that certain groups of people are of extremism within these principles?
An extremist will read into an ideology what they want it to read, not what is actually written. They will also extract certain concepts out of such ideologies and discard or disregard the rest; this of course changes the true meaning of such ideologies.
Take an Islamic, Christian or Buddhist ideology, what are these ideologies if we only use and utilise certain concepts out of them without taking in the whole ideology? An extreme action for it is extreme to only use and abide by certain concepts within an ideology while discarding the rest of the concepts within an ideology.
New age spirituality is different, it doesn’t seem to have a fixated set of ideologies to follow, people who are of this new age spiritualty have their own ideologies they personally follow as they have their own space. We all have our own space to begin with because we all have a different path of life to follow, this can at times incorporate following fixated ideologies, does this make these fixated ideologies, such as religious ideologies, any less worthy than following our own personal ideologies? It shouldn’t.
When you look at this, you can see that new age spirituality has taken various concepts from other ideologies to produce their own personal ideology, is this also of extremism? If we are using the concepts out of other ideologies and discarding the rest, are we being extreme within this action?
It’s an extreme action to take certain concepts out of cetin ideologies but it’s not of extremism, the reason for this is we are not trying, or shouldn’t be trying, to force our own space onto others, yes they give other people the idea of their own concepts but in most these people don’t force their own concepts (space) onto others.
Wouldn’t it be nice if all ideologies worked like this, keep within your own space without infringing on other people space unless these people are accepting of such ideologies. Personally I love being influenced by other people’s space (ideologies), not just because they make me more personally aware but more collectively aware as well.
What goes against making me more aware is extremism; anyone with a fixated ideology only wants you to be aware of their ideology while discarding all the rest, how aware will this then make us? We would once again be living in ignorance instead of awareness and we know how destructive ignorance can be.
I haven’t exactly become attached to my own space but I do have a close bond with it, it is who I am which to me is important to me to be aware of, I am my path. People of extremisms are also of their path for they chose to be influenced by fixated ideologies, they also chose to influence other people’s paths, this is their path, is it truly any less worthy than my own? All we need to do is stick to our own path and have our own space as much as possible and try not to judge other people’s path too unworthy in the meantime.
Become your space…….
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
Written by Mathew Naismith
Sorry for this being a lengthy post but I thought I would share where the discussion on a Noetic site is going between me & a logically minded person, we all have our own concepts of understanding. The following discussion was brought about by one of my recent posts titled The Psychological Benefits of Spirituality. The following shows only the recent discussion between me & this other bloke so I’ve inserted the relevant link below for further reading if you are interested.
Again, I am pleased to see that you are willing to engage in a discussion in an investigative manner. This will moves us away from a debate of abstract terminology and allows us to construct a model shaped by mutual understanding.
You seem to be on the right track in your descriptions of spirit as it applies to the two examples. Spirit, as it applies to the concept of a team spirit or school spirit is a sense within an individual. There might be a collective synergetic energy that is created within the dynamic of the networked group, but the motivative for this is generated by the individual's mental perception of what it is they imagine they are participating in.
If we were to analyze the individual members of a sports team, and measure the total of their individual abilities, the sum of their collective abilities could be more than the sum of their individual abilities. A team's ability to generate this added accomplishment is sometimes referred to as "chemistry" being the individuals. This is what we might say is the spirit of the team, but as we can see it has a material explanation.
Might this be the case of what is referred to as a spirit with in the individual?
I can suggest that from a historical perceptive, spirit was a concept invented to define what was unexplainable to humans at the time. "Spirits" were assigned human like qualities and were assign to the unexplained to such as forces of nature forces, animal behaviors, and other things which we now have a material explanation. This same invention of spirit was also applied to ourselves. The essence of a person , both their subjective senses and their objective being was embodied in a spirit or soul. These essences of ours were thought to exits in a place where others that created the forces of life on earth dwelled once we cease to be alive, since they were not visible to us.
The term consciousness and psyche are similar terms. If we look at the term "eudaimonia" it too has a similar aspect to it that can serve to illustrate my point. While we may think the word means or refers to a persons happiness, it does so from an objective sense; others observe whether or not a person had had a happy life.
When we are afforded this historical perceptive for our understanding of our spirit, and can see that the concept was a human invention, shaped into its present understanding through many factors, mostly religion.
If we now turn our attention to how it is that we have come to develop our own personal understandings of spirit, we will find that it was acquired in much the same way that we acquired a language; spirit was spoken about, in particular ways, in the environment in which we were raised. This might be personal in that it was an aspect of our family and, or, in a more general sense in cultural ways.
Either way, our own understanding is not our invention, it is instead something that was shaped out of the elements that we find. Since there is not evidence of an actual soul or spirit, we can only speak of it in terms of an unsupported belief. One that might be explainable in a material sense, given our propensity to assign agency to the unexplainable.
All our perceptions came from learned behaviour even if we don't realise it so to a scientist their perception is going to be logically based because this is the behaviour that is expected of them but a religious person perception is based on faith. Each other’s perception is obviously going to be wrong to the other even though both have their basis of existence. Neither one is wrong or right over the other in my opinion because they both have their basis for existing however on occasions when they are joined by a person who is both a spiritual & science minded we get a different perception again.
Which perception is wrong? We have to choose for ourselves either as individuals or as a collective. At times certain perceptions are forced upon us in certain cultures which brings us back to learned behaviour which doesn’t make one right or wrong over all else just different.
Both science & spirituality were formed by other factors of perception, what will the perception of science & spirituality together give us? Just a different perception which will be neither wrong nor right but to a person with a different perception this of course will be wrong, human nature!!
There are scientific finding of sorts that hint on ourselves having a soul like measuring the body soon after death for example which isn’t sound proof but a theory but what hasn’t started out as a theory & been proven to be fact further on down the track when we latter on could measure such things scientifically? We have only scratched the surface to our own self-discovery as science keeps finding out as it evolves.
Re: Both science & spirituality were formed by other factors of perception,
But science limits it's investigation to understanding what is material. It has a framework that allows for self correction.
There are a myriad of spiritual models, each based on rather antiquated concepts, thousands of years old. These models require blind faith and speculate endlessly about an alternative intended to distract us from our current subjective existence.
Yes, science is limited to certain abstracts of life where’s spirituality isn’t as opposed to religion. The self-correction of spirituality is shown by its balanced approach to its environment & self, science doesn’t care what it destroys in there endeavours to reach a conclusion & of course it serves to feed the destructive consumerist materialistic form of life we have now as well.
Yes, science within its limited logics is self-corrective but only within its own deductive reasoning’s, it doesn’t correct itself when it devices destructive & harmful chemical products or weapons like we have seen lately for example.
The way most of us make babies is still the same from day dot but it doesn’t make it antiquated so why should the way we find a connection & peace within ourselves be any different. Science has proven to me that not all newly formed concepts are beneficial by far; chemical weaponry is a good example of this for starters.
You seem to be just into logics which can & does hinder one's objectiveness in what they see because it's limited, logics used on it's own is limiting just like spirituality on it's own is limiting. Modern day science derived from philosophy & mysticism, both philosophy & mysticism on their own are limiting but together they gave us science. Science on it's own like any deductive reasoning process is limited to it's basic concepts but joined together with another concept gives us yet another deductive reasoning process. We have always evolved through this process of different & sometimes opposite concepts coming together to form a totally different concept of understanding. Logics hopefully isn’t the be & end all otherwise we will stop evolving.
How do new science techniques come about? We now have quantum vacuum, physics & mechanics which are slightly different within their deductive reasoning’s & concepts especially from basic sciences, they evolved by taking on different deductive concepts of understanding. Not all of what quantum physics is about is of logics; there are some real strange theories bandied about.