Showing posts with label desires. Show all posts
Showing posts with label desires. Show all posts

Sunday, 30 June 2019

This Is What I Am Seeing

Written by Mathew Naismith

Yes, how many different and numerous desires are out there at present, from materialism to spirituality? So which ones should control and replace all other desires? Of course the answer is my desire should....!!

What we desire the reality to be at present and in the future, is often in contradiction to the natural cycles at play. Basically, our desires represent the small picture and natural cycles depict the big picture. It is natural for a consciousness that lives in ignorance, especially in deliberate ignorance, to be destructive and chaotic in the absence of love. This simply depicts the abuse of energy. 

In saying this, it is also natural for a consciousness that is aware to be constructive and harmonious in the presence of love. Within this, one works in harmony with all energy, be it perceived as negative or positive. Certainly not in deliberate ignorance of one undesired energy in favour of a desired energy.

Even though there are a lot of people still primarily focusing on their own desires, probably more so than ever in human history, there are a lot of people who are aware how to work in harmony with all energies in the absence of bias (desire). I predict the next evolutionary human conscious cycle will be of working in harmony with all energy. Often at the end of each cycle, parts of the next cycle are present at the end of the previous cycle.

Yes, we often desire positive energy to negative energy, which is like and in line with separating parts of consciousness we desire to be of, while discarding parts of consciousness we don't desire to be of. The division of consciousness simply serves to control and replace undesired through domination of the desired. This doesn't sound too much like the next predicted cycle that human consciousness is suppose to evolve into. Look at how Iran and Russia are being singled out, deliberately separated from the rest of the world controlled and dominated by lustful desiring people. I think if Russia in particular can hold out against such lustful desires, evil if you like, the next evolutionary cycle of human consciousness will occur.

We often look at Russia as being evil, when they are not the one's trying to dominate the rest of the world based purely on self-serving lustful desires. So it is less evil allowing the people of Yemen to be purposely starved to death, or, allowing the harsh persecution of Palestinians under a Zionist controlled regime. I find it far more evil when people deliberately ignore the negatives in the world to become and stay positive, especially to simply fulfil their desires.

We will in the end enter into the next cycle, be it at a much later date in time it would seem.  

Wednesday, 26 June 2019

Awareness, Full Stop

Written by Mathew Naismith

 “The key to growth is the introduction of higher dimensions of consciousness into our awareness.” Lao Tzu.

“Let us not look back in anger, nor forward in fear, but around in awareness.” James Thurber

Here I was with a secondary lung infection trying to keep house still. I was physically impaired but still highly spiritually unimpaired/heightened. This is what you get when you don't base your positive attitude on the absence of negatives. I could have become totally physically undone through simply being unaware, nothing to do with positive or negative energies. People like yourself make people aware, which has nothing to do with the endless battle between negative and positive energies. People like you are more important to the people than they know, at present.

The above was in reply to the concerns of a good internet friend of mine in relation to my present physical health, Carolynne Melnyk.

Don't underestimate what awareness not in the absence of ignorance can create. Only a fool living within their own ignorance will state that awareness is of the absence of ignorance, for to state so is of ignorance!!

What is awareness in the absence of the ignorance of unawareness? What are you aware of, awareness or awareness and ignorance? If I was to say, "Only can I be aware of awareness for to be aware is in the absence of unawareness/ignorance, is this of awareness when in deliberate ignorance of unawareness?" As to be truly positive, being aware isn't of the ignorance of unawareness but an awareness of all without bias or desire.

How many souls at present are experiencing a lesser aware state?

It is often thought today, to change the world, we must lead by example, this means primarily focusing on oneself to change the world around us to the same manner as ourselves. The rest of the world will simply follow by our example. Of course to lead is to control.

The small pictorial view is, to improve on yourself, lead by example to what you desire everyone else's pictorial view to be like. The big pictorial view is, to influence those who want to be influenced, leaving all other people's own pictorial views alone. The big picture shows me that all is worthy, as our own souls obviously think being less aware is as worthy as being more aware. My own recent unawareness in relation to my own physical health gave me more awareness, for to learn from suffering is wiser than to still suffer from suffering.

How many centuries of control has the collective human consciousness endured, where a person or groups of people lead by example?  The continuing trend of consciousness is to lead by example, in the process influencing others to follow your own depiction in what you desire the world around you should be like. To do this of course is in deliberate ignorance to anyone else's pictorial view. It is as if all journeys are to be of the same, which to me takes a huge amount of control of other people's views and desires to do, very simular to what the multinationals are presently doing. It is the same old consciousness expressed in a slightly different way, as, being positive takes to be in deliberate ignorance to the negatives. How many multinationals are deliberately ignorant to what they are doing?

The people who want to lead by example simply want to control their environment; this is instead of simply experiencing their present environment.

Simply experiencing an environment doesn't mean you can't try to influence this environment. Often an environment will call out for change or act in a certain way that will lead to change on its own accord, often unaware of what the environment is leading to. If you are unable to influence the environment, let it go, for to control how other people's pictorial view should be like, is a continuation of a consciousness that refuses to evolve any further.

If you are simply aware, not just of a desired awareness, the present environment is calling for change, not by taking control but by its own accord within its own deliberate ignorance. As one cycle will naturally lead to another cycle, especially without being under control, so will human consciousness. At the end of each cycle, a little of what is of the next cycle becomes a part of ending cycle, thus influencing the present cycle to enter the new cycle.

As a baby comes closer to its next cycle of birth, how much is the unborn baby changing form is influenced by the next cycle? This is without controlling the unborn baby by leading the baby down a certain path, for example, the mother takes drugs, so does the baby!! Has the mother the right to influence the baby away from drugs by not taking drugs? The mother is simply taking away the influence of the control of drugs, not influencing the unborn baby to its own kind of intoxication. Why then influence other people to our own way of life by leading by example through control?  The drugs the mother takes is of control. Not taking drugs is releasing the baby from the control of drugs, thus allowing the baby to live within its own pictorial view, to live its own journey, not someone else's journey of control.

Simply, release yourself from taking control, especially of other people's lives through your own personal desires of what life should be like. In other words, in the absence of leading other people to your own desires of life, just simply be aware. Of course I am aware that the ego in control can't leave it at that.

For human consciousness to evolve into a completely different cycle, the adage that we should focus on ourselves above all else is completely of the present consciousness. If you are still unable to give up your most desired desires, for example, being of love and light, enlightenment or materialism, you are still preventing human consciousness from evolving any further.

This is funny. Anyone truly of love and light or enlightenment, would at any time give up their present euphoria's or state of being. How many souls have done this to start with, to experience human consciousness as it is, not how the soul desires it to be?  But to the human conscious, anything that gives us euphoric feelings isn't just embraced but often becomes one of our most cherished and lavishly indulged desires. In another words a fixation often expressed to a major extent.

To experience a pure sense of awareness in the absence of all our human desires is beyond words. Yes, beyond love and light and even enlightenment itself, for a true enlightened one doesn't seek enlightenment or the euphoria's of enlightenment.  An enlightened one simply extracts itself from all that is desired, in turn, only allowing a pure sense of awareness to influence them by.

Are my writings, as above, popular with the ego in control? They were never meant to be.......       

Monday, 19 November 2018

Avoiding Feeding the Egos Desires

Written by Mathew Naismith

Are people being offensive or is it that our egos are offended when our egos desires are not being fed by other people? I am aware myself when I am offended, that it's only my ego that is being offended, not me as a collective consciousness. If only people's egos were aware in how small the ego is to our whole self, of course to make the ego aware of this, the ego is often offended that it's not of the entire self. "How dare you offend me in this way, I am all that you are". Not too far off in how the ego in control actually thinks, not that the ego in control desires to become aware of this of course.

Yes, as you can become offended by other people's views and actions, your own ego can become offended by your own views and actions. The ratio between people stating I am offensive to them when not feeding their egos is nothing compared to my own ego in my life. Your own ego doesn't desire to be offended so it will only accept what feeds it, everything else will be judged in accordance to it's offensiveness to the ego in control. You could feed the ego everything in existence and it would still desire more, multinationals are a prime example of this. If you gave the multinationals the whole universe, would not their own controlling egos desire even more, as of any ego in control?

It's really strange for people like me; observing a reality primarily created to feed the desires of the controlling ego, where balance of the ego is shunned or denounced at all cost. A reality like this isn't strange within itself, for only a controlling ego can create such a reality as it's natural for a controlling ego to do. What is strange is observing this reality become self-destructive. You would think the ego would be self-preserving therefore embrace the balancing of itself to preserve it's existence but alas, the ego in control feeds on everything until there is nothing left for the ego to exist in or on.

I have simply lost count how many people I am supposed to have offended. As soon as people state or think this, I know they are not truly aware or aware of how defensive their own ego is to being offended. Yes, not feeding other people's controlling egos or even your own controlling ego is highly offensive to the ego in control. This is different compared to ego not in control, which simply means an ego that accepts being balanced in accordance to it's present environment. How often does an ego in control create its own environment in opposition to the present existing environment? How many spiritually aware people these days desire to do the exact same thing, to simply feed the pleasures of the egos? People like me don't feed people's egos, this is not what spirituality is supposed to be about but alas, once again the ego in control changes the present environment of spirituality to primarily serve the egos desires and pleasures!!

Think on this, do spiritual gurus or shamans deliberately go out to become enlightened? Did Jesus or Buddha purposely leave their current environment to become enlightened? No, what is purposely exercised is the detachments created by the ego, for example, desires and abuse. Enlightenment is simply a by-product of releasing yourself from the controlling ways of the ego; it can be at no time of the egos primary objective otherwise enlightenment simply won't occur. Yes, a thought of an enlightening experience is thought of but the main focus isn't on enlightenment but on releasing yourself from control altogether. Yes, to the ego releasing yourself from control seems like you are taking more control but in actuality your not, this is simply an egos perception, nothing more. The pleasure the ego feels from releasing yourself from control isn't to serve the ego, as the egos tries to make out, it's simply once again a by-product, in other words part of the process of detaching ourselves from control. This is exactly like unconditional love; unconditional love is simply a by-product of becoming aware and at no time should be abused and used as the primary objective or focus. This is exactly why the kind of unconditional love that comes from this isn't true unconditional love, it's simply becomes a desire of the controlling ego to feel more pleasure no matter what the cost is.

Sorry, if I am not going to feed my own ego desires, it is unlikely I will serve other people's egos desires, if the ego in control takes offence to this, so be it. I should also say, even when people are purposely being offensive and you are offended by this, it's simply your ego in control that is offended, not you as a whole or even your ego that is not in control. Try to become aware that your ego is a very small part of who you are as a whole; this alone should bring some balance to a controlling ego gone troppo if you are truly aware of this.

This is funny; the pic is of a cat looking in the mirror only seeing themselves as something grandiose as a lion. We are all of what is, not what our egos only desire to be of.                                                    

Thursday, 30 August 2018

Defining Unconditional Love

Written by Mathew Naismith

In truth, are we becoming more unconditionally loving or less? To answer this we must first define what unconditional love is, I hope the following does just this. I recently found the following in my research on this topic.

Extract: "Conditional love is a polarised emotion, meaning that it has an opposite emotion. The opposite extreme of love is hatred. Conditional love comes from ego and generally focuses on someone (like romantic partner, child, parent, friend) or something (like a house, a car or a job). When we love someone conditionally, we tend to want them to look, act and think in ways that fit our own paradigms and expectations.

Unconditional love is a neutral and has no opposite. The source of unconditional love is Spirit; therefore it is available to everyone without discernment, and there is absolutely nothing we need to do to qualify for it.

Indeed, conditional love has everything to do with fulfilling our desires to feel good or feel better and better, there seems to be no end to fulfilling our ego desires. Are multinationals happy with owning millions of dollars worth of assets? No, it has to be billions and even trillions. Do we not also use spirituality to feel good or better and better? Lets be honest, the feel good industry that serves our desires is growing at an alarming rate. If it doesn't make us feel good, it's a negative, I am flabbergasted (astonished)!!

I am flabbergasted because I can't see how we have evolved any further in consciousness from thousands of years ago. Is trying to escape and/or showing an obvious disdain for humanity a show of unconditional love? If you can face the so-called negatives face on as you do the positives, this is a sign of being unconditional within your consciousness. Unconditional love is a consciousness of the absence of conditions period, how many of us separate what makes us feel good to what doesn't make us feel good? We often do this by judging what is and isn't negative and positive to start with. A separation of consciousness by the ego to fulfilled its desires!! A consciousness of unconditional love has nothing to fulfill, there are no desires therefore nothing to fulfill.  

If people like me were all about feeling good and fulfilling our desires, we wouldn't be telling the truths in the way it actually is, we would instead tell the truth in accordance with ours and other people's desires. I certainly don't desire to tell the truth in the way it is as it doesn't make me feel good or bad and this is where the neutral comes into it. It's a con by the ego, way do we have to feel good or bad, negative or positive? The strange thing with not always trying to feel good by separating consciousness into negatives and positive, bad and good, it does make me feel good by simply being neutral. Being neutral isn't a fulfillment of a desire; it's simply being of a neutral consciousness between what's desired and undesired. Being of a neutral consciousness, a consciousness of the absence of conditions depicts a consciousness of fewer motions. It's understandable that the fewer motions we express, the more truly unconditionally loving our consciousness will be. So many spiritual practices depict just this but are we truly listening?

In a time of insurmountable deception, chaos, mayhem and destruction, it is understandable and natural for the ego to desire to escape from this by any means. Be careful though, is deceiving yourself to an existence of unconditional love, when this existence has insurmountable conditions, not of the deception therefore a creation of this ego controlled existence? It is advisable to never create another existence from the same energy that created the previous existence; this kind of consciousness will never truly evolve in this manner. Any separation of consciousness naturally creates an existence based on deception and self-deception. Separating consciousness by any means will only lead to deception and lies or half truths!!

My advice to any spiritually aware person is to desist in any program, (ideology or ism), which leads to the separation of consciousness into negatives and positives, bad and good, black and white. Try to become more neutral and the more neutral you become, the more unconditionally loving you will become without effort. Are people like me truly unconditionally loving? No, we are of no conditions, this simply means to become unconditionally loving hasn't the conditions of not being of desires as well, just being simply aware is all that is needed, aware of our neutral being/existence. Remember, to try to be the opposite of desire is still of a desire, simply be as neutral as you can be without desiring this state too much. Go with the flow, not against it.......                             

Thursday, 11 January 2018

Easing the Pain

Written by Mathew Naismith

There are many ways to ease the pain of our present environment, religion, materialism, Wicca and new age spirituality of love and light are but a few ways of easing the pain. It is wise to be aware that none of these are right or wrong, they are simply ways of easing the pain. Is religion wrong or negative to a religious person? Is atheism wrong or negative to an atheist? Yes, to anything not of our desires can be seen as wrong or negative, within this perception, only the negatives of an undesired will be observed, this is human nature.

How negative is religion to atheists and visa-versa? How negative is everything else to a new age spiritual person that is not of love and light? Of course the extremism involved determines how negative everything else will be that is not of our desires or vibration.

People like me are simply into wisdom and awareness, this is not usually determined by what we desire but of what actually is, of what we observe in other beliefs and ideologies, not of what we only participate in that is usually governed or controlled by our desires.

Participation; as opposed to observation, is easy to recognise, it's usually linked to a desire rather than to what actually is, for example, God is depicted as a man. Atheism; the mind (consciousness) can't exist outside the human brain, or, there never was or ever could be a God or divine presence. To a person into wisdom, what would we know to be so absolute, but we are because of our desires?

Observation; doesn't work on desires but what actually is. Desires simply don't take part in observation, however, when we also participate as well as observe, we quite naturally express desires therefore create reflections or bias perceptions of what isn't desired. The trick is, try to observe yourself while in participation, yes, observe other people and your environment but be primarily observant of yourself within a particular environment. Most importantly while in observation of your own participation, stay way clear of wrong or rights, negatives or positives as these reflections simply denote a desire and an undesired. Don't judge yourself too harshly for it is natural to be desiring while in participation.

Easing the pain void of desires simply takes one to also observe, especially our own participation, of course as of always, this will be seen as negative to anyone of a desired belief or ideology, this is human nature. What we desire is simply finite in nature and transitory in it's easing of the pain, especially on a collective scale.

One more thing, what you desire creates pain for someone else's desire, avoid this if possible.                                     

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

The 100th Monkey, Not Human!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

Instincts: The 100th monkey theory is actually based on scientific research which lasted over 30 years. The 100th monkey started with a female monkey washing dirty sweet potatoes before eating them, once the 100th monkey started doing the same, all the other monkeys quickly followed suite. What happened next is other monkeys on another island started washing these potatoes soon after the 100th monkey started doing so.

What's obvious is that there was some form of telekinesis occurring when monkeys on other islands started doing the same thing but only after the 100th monkey started washing these potatoes. This shows that a conscious form can communicate with other conscious forms without direct physical contact, this means humans can also communicate in this way. The theory is, once the 100th human becomes aware or enlightened, the social structure of the world will change in the same manner. This is well and good but there is one major point missing within this theory, humans are fixated to egotism were monkeys aren't!!

It all comes down to monkeys natural instincts, monkeys still utilise their natural instincts, humans as a whole don't as this was replaced by egotistic intentions and desires. Monkeys still to this day exist for a need, however, humans as a whole live primary for a desire and this trend is growing not depleting.

When a consciousness is existing primarily on natural instincts as a monkey, they are going to be a lot more receptive to social changes through the 100th monkey theory than humans. The reason for this is humans have fixations to a very strong influence we call egotism. In actuality, the 100th monkey has worked in reverse, yes, we have social change but a social change of chaos. I don't think anyone within there right mind couldn't say chaos isn't getting worse in the world.

A monkeys needs were met when the 100th monkey washed it's potatoes, when the 100th human expressed egotism, there desires were met which was then adopted by many other humans.  The big difference is, the monkeys adapted a social trend for a need, humans did it for a desire which is a lot more influential. The 100th monkey theory certainly, to me, proves that a form of telekinesis certainly does exist between different conscious forms, it doesn't however say that when the 100th, 1000th or even 100,000th human becomes aware or enlightened, all other humans will inadvertently do the same. 

Desires: How many spiritually aware people talk about desires and manifesting desires today?  If you can't release yourself of desires, this firmly denotes an ego still in control. You must be able or willing to release yourself of all human straits and fixations, this certainly includes desires. Once we are able to do this, yes, the 100th monkey theory will work on human consciousness in my mind, however, for this to work on a collective scale will take the majority of people to become this receptive to this kind of social change. This will not occur if we are still fixated to egoist influences like desire and control.

Monkeys are much more receptive to social change that serve a need, however,  humans on the other hand are much more receptive to social change that serve a desire over and above a need.

We might think we wouldn't have evolved like the monkeys if we didn't desire and especially desire control, this wouldn't have been the case. What we would have done is explored and built upon our minds without destroying all else in the process. I'm going to theorise myself in that natural basic instincts, used in conjunction with receptiveness and our natural exploratory instincts, would have made us more wise instead of just knowledgeable.

How many people desire to accumulate knowledge? Countless, desire is behind nearly all of what we do.

Need: How many people accumulate knowledge for a need, I mean a need that isn't going to lead to a desire, an accumulation of wealth or personal prestige of some kind?  There are actually more and more people doing just this these days. The accumulation of knowledge has now become a need to save ourselves form ourselves. To me, this denotes wisdom where's accumulating knowledge to serve our desires shows an obvious lack of wisdom in my mind.

The fundamental difference between us and monkeys is desire and a desire to control ourselves and everything around us. Of course the human race started off existing from a need, did a 100th human expressing egotism give us the reality we have today? It's most possible and probable being that we were more receptacle to such levels of influence as we were only existing for a need through our natural instincts and perceptions.

It is so obvious things are quite different now, can the 100th monkey theory influence us once again to reverse the process away from our egoistical destructive ways? Very unlikely, we are still well and truly attached to desire over and above a need,  the strange thing is, we (need) to change our ways to save ourselves and everything else around us. I think to make this theory work, we need to once again learn to live for a need for the 100th monkey theory to work, the good news is, this is now quite easy to do. It's no longer a desire to save everything, it's become a need, all we have to do is work towards this need to change our social structure.

We need to be aware this will not occur if we can't let go of desires and control, in other words, work towards living for a need over and above our desires.

Monday, 5 October 2015

Healing a World in Disharmony

Written by Mathew Naismith

My wife at present is reading a book titled, Your Hearts Desire. This book is basically about manifesting for your dreams and desires, it also explains that your hearts desires cannot be manifested through a controlling ego.

Desires: One of the scenarios used in the book is to do with how this person wanted to go to a ball but this person had no one to take her. This person was told to visualise being taken to this ball by a particular man. This of course occurred otherwise she couldn't have used this scenario in the book. You might think her desire were fulfilled but it wasn't, her need was fulfilled. To me, a manifested desire is about control but a manifested need is a totally different story.

So what has this got to do with healing a world in disharmony? Plenty, if everyone only manifested for a need, there would be no desire of wars and other conflicts. You might think, if we were being used and abused by a monocracy/bureaucracy, that we would have a need to conflict with such control. The point is, if everyone was living for a need rather than a desire, these controlling forces wouldn't and couldn't exist within such a reality in the first place. Could you imagine a reality not dominated by some kind of monocracy/bureaucracy, we certainly haven't within this reality as a collective experienced this as yet.  

Controlling: You are not being controlling when you are manifesting for a need, on the other hand you are being highly controlling if you only live for desires. In actuality, you are being controlled by a controlling ego if you exist in this way, if you exist entirely by a need, you are not being controlled and controlling, you are just being for a need. In a sense, being controlled by the ego manifests control within our ego self, we then become controlling ourselves.

There is at times a fine line between desire and a need though, the scenario in the book, to me, tells us of a need even though this person desired to be taken to the ball by a particular person. Would not the person who ended taking  her to the ball also desire to date such a women? There was a need that obviously needed to be met through a desire from both parties, in this case, desire was used to fulfil a need, the desire was not in control, the need was. A controlling ego doesn't want to manifest a need, a controlling ego always desires to manifest for a desire, a controlling ego can also trick us to believe we are only living for a need when it's purely of desire. The intentions of a controlling ego is always of desire.  

A controlling desire will always create a destructive reality, this is wholly due to desires always having a need to desire more and more. This isn't the same when existing only for a need, once a need is met, that is it, full stop unless we become desiring. When this occurs, this is when the ego is in control of us which then manifests us to become controlling ourselves.

Intentions: I think we need to get away from intentions altogether, desires are all about intentions but needs aren't. You might think you have to have intentions to put food on the table and a roof over our heads but it isn't, this is a need which takes basic instincts and intuitiveness. What we are basically doing is replacing intentions of desires with basic instinctive needs, in actuality, by living for a need rather than a desire is getting back to our natural selves. It's not natural to desire more and more until we destroy ourselves or others altogether, no other from of life on this planet does this, even a mindless virus doesn't do this intentionally but man often does this through a simple process of desiring!!

We might think if we took intentions out of our lives, we wouldn't evolve or even cater for our needs, this isn't the case at all. It's quite amusing how the controlling ego keeps deceiving us in this way, all what would happen is our controlling desires would be replaced by basic instincts and intuitiveness once again. Indeed, our controlling desires have replaced our basic instincts and intuitiveness and we wonder why we live in such a destructive reality. Our natural instincts tell us that it is pointless causing conflict if it has nothing to do with our basic needs.

Yes, it's difficult for a lot of people to perceive the possibility of existing without any intentions what so ever, this is all to do with a controlling ego that only wants to serve it's own desires. Can we imagine existing in a reality totally void of  intentions? To me it's obvious intentions would be replaced by our basic instincts and intuitiveness, this of course would create quite a different more passive reality in my mind. Of course a controlling ego doesn't desire this as it would no longer be able to fulfil it's never ending desires. I also think a mind controlled by an ego is incapable of perceiving a world totality void of intentions, such a mind couldn't possibly imagine such an existence, in actuality, a controlling ego wouldn't desire to imagine this in the first place.

A controlling ego hell bent on feeding it's desires cannot perceive a world not in conflict and disharmony in some way, however, a lot of spiritually aware and harmoniously loving people can. Because a controlling ego is unable to perceive such an existence, it naturally manifests a world of conflict and disharmony. Yes, I did say natural because it is natural for a mind controlled by ego to create/manifest such a world.

Are spiritually aware and harmoniously loving people wasting their time trying to bring about a more harmoniously loving world? Not at all, what these people are doing is showing that we can indeed live in quite a different world than what we have manifested. We are showing that a harmoniously loving reality, void of any kind of controlling ego, can indeed and does exist.  It's hard to imagine a magical world like this but they do indeed exist.      

Tuesday, 7 April 2015

Spiritual Needs vs Human Desires

Written by Mathew Naismith


I entered into a discussion on the question of, Does letting go have any power?, as soon as I responded with the following, most people stopped responding.  I will break my responses up into sections so it's easier to follow.

Releasing ourselves from desires: I've had a worsening disability since I was six years old, to accomplish anything, I've had to be extremely motivated through my intentions and yes it worked, my desires to accomplish through such a disability was astonishing.

However, the only time I found true peace and tranquillity was through releasing myself from all desires to achieve beyond my capability, in actual fact my desires of achieving were doing me harm even though at the human psychological level I felt better.

This is the difference, at the human psychological level I needed to achieve, and to achieve I needed to desire which caused me more actual harm which needed even more motivation by me to balance things out.

Now at the spiritual level all I needed to do is be humble and release myself from my desires which I did at times, guess what happened? I was in total peace and tranquillity without having to motivate myself to achieve.

The human self thinks it needs desires to achieve but it doesn't. Desire is like a pushing and pulling effect, we pull one desire in to push another older desire out and so on it goes until we stop pushing and pulling. Guess what causes chaos and destruction ? An endless stream of pushing and pulling one desire after another.

Is it time for the human race to also give up it's desires and fixations? In my mind I think it's desired enough, it's basically at the same point to were I am and probably where a lot of people are at. Did I learn from my own desires? Bloody oath I did but there is a point of knowing when to let go completely, are we wise enough collectively to know when to release ourselves altogether? I think that's still quite questionable but we are a good sign that we are becoming wise and aware.

"To flow smoothly through life. Do some let go."

In my case when I released myself from desires and intentions, life became a lot more tranquil and peaceful, this doesn't work for everyone, you have psychologically got to prepare yourself for releasing yourself in such away otherwise it won't work. This is because we are conditioned, from birth, to have intentions and desires, latter on in life it's not easy to reprogram your mind to think otherwise.

I think it would be nice to teach children from birth to live with as little desires and intentions as possible, this happens to one extent or another in other cultures. I was talking to a bloke in India, he said they were taught from a young age to be aware of the desires of the ego, in the west we seem to be taught quite the opposite.

"Thought leads to desire which leads to Action. Letting go desire will let go Action and will improve your spiritual quotient.It does not advise you to be in a state of Inaction"

I think so, by getting away from the constant pushing and pulling effect, we will actually release our selves from chaos and our destructive ways. A state of inaction is to do nothing about this endless pushing and pulling effect. You would think this takes intentions but all it takes is to release yourself from this constant pushing and pulling effect, once you release yourself from such actions, there are no desires and intentions.

Desires and needs: I think there is a big difference between desire and need here, I look at the human race as needing to release itself after so many years of desires and intentions, the question is, do we need to desire to do this?

Desire is active intentions, this is what we have experienced as a collective all these years, now need is more about passive intentions, there is no actual action because no action is needed, all what one has to do is release oneself from active intentions. It takes a need not a desire to change this. We needed the desires to have a need to stop desiring but what I am saying is we don't need a desire to stop desiring, all this will do is continue the pushing and pulling effect I feel. It is now all to do with a need not a desire.

Wow, Mathew. How long have you been holding this inside yourself. You really have had some interesting stuff happening. That's good. Loved to read what you have said here. Keep on.

Since I was in my early teens, I am now 51 years old, I've only been coming out with this stuff for about four years now.

Like a lot of people like myself, I have basically experienced what the collective has been experiencing, a lot of motivation which took a lot of intentions and desires to achieve, however, all this did was create even more of the same.

I realised this in my mid-teens, however, I had a (need) to experience what the collective was going through on a personal level just like a lot of other people have, what better way to also become aware on a human level of understanding.

Through all my hardships, I am indeed blessed.

I'm sorry that I clash with some people, that I'm afraid is going to happen as I have an unusual perception that does at times clash with other people's perceptions. Nothing is right or wrong, it's just different.

Anger; is of the controlling factors of the ego, it's the ego being in control over our whole selves, so yes anger is very controlling.

The funny thing is once you let go, power and control become obsolete as well because there is no further need for power and control, power and control over what? This is the passive tranquil stage, there is no need of the action of opposing because there is nothing to have power over, including ourselves, because you have totally released yourself from such actions.