Beyond the Teachers Teachings

Written by Mathew Naismith

Yes of course, a teacher who is truly being a teacher would want their students to surpass their teachings; my mistake is I wagged school a lot which made going to college interesting to say the least. Note; wagging school is to do with not going to school at times. This has made my life interesting and harder to live within an environment conducive to a high level of education.

Are not a lot of us wagging school, not learning from our greatest teacher's, isms, ideologies and our natural environment? How many of us desire to learn to live within our natural environment, the very same environment that supports our existence? How many of us are surpassing the teachers like isms and ideologies? Yes, isms and ideologies are our teachers that we should learn to surpass. Many isms and ideologies teach us about existences beyond our present environment, even the 3rd dimensional environment. How many of us are wagging these classes, or, abusing the teachings in these classes by using these isms and ideologies in an abusive way? And we wonder why the world is the way it is, and why it will stay that way or get worse!!

Most of us are conditioned from birth to only be aware of our immediate environment, making comprehension of any other environment most difficult. Most of us don't even know much about the 3rd dimensional environment, being that we still know little about the universe. How many advanced beings in the universe are we aware of? Many of us are still theorising how the universe was created, this is while many isms and ideologies teach us about environments way beyond 3rd dimensional aspects. Mind boggling isn't it!!

I was once in a state that I could ask any question and an immediate correct answer would come to me. This was quite natural to do in this state, a state that goes beyond most teacher's teachings, beyond most isms and ideologies teachings. Any of us at any time can enter into this state. I of course recently discovered this to be a true state through the teaching's of Hinduism. Please note; I am not advocating Hinduism, it's that I have no bias of any teachings therefore I learn from all teachings. The state I was in was only the tip of the iceberg as many isms and ideologies teach. How many of us are wagging these classes, or, abusing the knowledge from these classes? And we wonder why the reality is presently where it is at!!

To teach without wisdom is not teaching, it is simply telling. And to learn without the guidance of wisdom is not learning, it is simply listening of the absence of being what is being taught........M G Naismith

Bewildered -You Are Not Alone

Written by Mathew Naismith

If you are thinking that all the tribal disputes that are occurring at present are consciously backward and abusive to energy as a whole, you are not alone. This includes anything from atheism to religion, materialism to spirituality, advancing science to main stream science and so on it goes. Main stream science simply means a science that dogmatically follows certain doctrines/concepts that are based on 3rd dimensional aspects only. Today's science is supposed to lead to tomorrow's science!!

Being bewildered refers to a state of confusion brought about by many conflicting and varied expressions. What's most bewildering to me is that we are still abusing each other over simply being different within the tribe. The tribe in this case refers to the human experience as a whole without separation. Of course bias and bigotry will try to separate this tribe leading to conflict and abuse of energy as whole; we simply need to be aware of this. We must also remember the human experience is not separate to the environment the human experience is being experienced in. In truth, the environment is just as important if not more so, like the abusive environment to energy as whole that humans have created. It is the environment that makes us who we are within the present......

This post actually stemmed from what long lasting internet friend of mine shared with me. If you are as bewildered and perplexed as I am in our interactions with each other at present, you should find the following video interesting and hopefully helpful.                      

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw

Thanks for sharing this with me Charlene, he says what I state so often very well.

We have a much bigger tribe these days but at the same time critically judging and leaving the ideologies and isms that keep this tribe working together as one.  I am not fond in how we have abused these ideologies and isms either, but to increase this abuse is only going to lead to one thing, more abuse and destruction.

Is New Age spirituality helping with bringing the tribe together as one?

I had a lengthy discussion with a New Age spiritual person just recently; they indeed think they are our saviours. The rest of us are wrong, negative (toxic) and bad in some way, especially the ideologies and isms we follow.  Yes, there has been abuse of these ideologies and isms but there has been a lot more moral tribal bonding than abuse.  Is it being positive when a person who only self-deceptively only looks at the abuse created by another ideology or ism?  And we wonder why deception has flourished in such an environment!!

I personally know of Catholics who help known atheists who are having a hard time of it, would most atheists do the exact same thing to Catholics? No, because these Catholics are wrong, negative and bad in some way. In cases like this, Catholics show no bias but the same can't be said about atheists in the same circumstance. 

How many people these days blame religion for all the wars and conflicts? I have simply lost count and yes, it's that many. So for starters, religion was behind the two world wars, not politics or a lust for power and control primarily? It is all about self-deception these days which is purely based on bias and bigotry.

Sorry for this Charlene, it looks like I am going to turn this into another post. I really do appreciate you sharing this video with me.

Be blessed and well,

Mathew 

Using Ideologies and Isms Correctly

                                                    Written By Mathew Naismith

Having consorted on this topic with a number of people recently, including clashes with atheists of one kind or another, it is obvious to me we are using isms and ideologies incorrectly. We are using them as a be and end all, or, an ultimate state of thinking that should suite everyone. Personally, I don't know of any ism or ideology that would suite every, thankfully, on a collective scale, we are too diverse, too unlimited in consciousness for that.

Why limit human consciousness to one consort, one ideological view which dominates and limits our consciousness to one ideological stance? For me, I couldn't imagine being this limited, this encaged by a singular ideology. In saying this though, diversity of consciousness also includes people being very content within their own ideological stance.  

In my own mind, all isms and ideologies should be used as a guide, not a be and end all, an ultimate state of being for all. I would not like to think that human consciousness could ever reach this state of encaged consciousness, a consciousness totally limited by its own conscious limitations. Diversity is the key an ever evolving consciousness.

Having also researched on this topic, I found the following quite interesting and very truthful. It is wise to know that isms and ideologies can and do create bias and even disdain, especially towards an opposing ism or ideology. Once influenced by such isms and ideologies, especially dogmatically, truth becomes a blur, truth basically becomes less truthful.                              

https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2011/06/23/the-danger-of-isms/

Extract: One of my bigger regrets is publicly declaring myself an atheist.

Not because I’ve made a recent conversion to faith—I’m still confident in my original opinion. Rather, because I believe “-isms” are dangerous, whether it is theism, atheism, vegetarianism, Buddhism or any other philosophy.

http://www.thefreethinkinglife.com/the-end-of-isms-2/

I do find the rigid conscious limited stance of atheists that treat atheism, materialism and science as a be an end, as an ultimate all powerful God like ideological ism, are as bad if not worse within their religion than extremist religion. Again, atheism, like any ideological ism, should be treated as guide, not some ultimate all powerful God like entity because this is exactly what is occurring.  

I personally know of a number of atheists, I was once an atheist myself, even my stepdaughter confirms that she is an atheist, for every good reasons I might add. They are not into extremist atheism, an ism that is being treated far more than just a guide to life to think and live by.      

The following will show how some of these kinds of atheists think, to me, there is no logics to the way they think and live. This is an example of westernised atheism, not eastern atheism, there is a difference.

_____________________________

As I have stated before, not all experiences and observations can be proven factually, it doesn't make them untrue to the observer or experiencer. The materialist/atheist stance is, to me, too rigid/dogmatic and illogical.

Everyone dreams including materialists, so if a dream can't be substantiated by hard core facts, the dream didn't occur. This would mean a materialist can't discuss their dreams void of solid evidence that they had an actual dream!! Strange logic's for a people who have a go at other people's logic's or lack of.

I do understand materialist/atheist ideological views, especially when limited to primary materialist perspectives.

I do however use a lot of actual experiences and observation, at times supported by scientific evidence. In a sense, I have a right to talk about my dreams void of physical evidence. How do you debate or even question a non-psychical occurrence void of actual evidence? It's totally illogical to even try but materialists do exactly this which shows how illogical they too can be!!

Fact and truth; I had a number of dreams last night.

Fact and truth; there is no knowable evidence of me having these dreams.

Fact and truth; I had these dreams even when the lack of evidence proves otherwise.

Fact and truth; the reliance on evidence to prove an occurrence occurred can often be flawed.

In my mind, we need to be more truthful with ourselves, evidence can be and is often flawed, this doesn't include actual tampering of evidence either!!

_____________________________

You have got to understand this stance of a lot of westernised atheists. To acknowledge observation and actual experience as evidence, would be to open themselves up to observation and actual experiences from opposing ideologies as evidence as well. The deception here is that atheists also rely on observation and actual experience as a prime source of evidence at times as well.

If you label an opposing ideology hypocritical, this deceptively takes the emphasis off their own hypocrisy, yes, its fraudulent behaviour by a lot of westernised atheists of today. It's sad that many atheists have turned atheism and science into yet another religion, yet another be and end all ism/ideology!!    

Infinite and Finite Ideologies /Philosophies

Written by Mathew Naismith

Before considering following an ideology and or philosophy consider this, which one's are limiting and which one aren't. A good example of this is the ego limiting or liberating  physically and through it's ideologies and /or philosophies. Is one set of ideologies and /or philosophies stifling/limiting to all other ideologies and /or philosophies within an ideology/philosophy?

Can an ideology/philosophy be infinite in nature if it has limits within it's ideologies and philosophies? The answer of course is no as all limitations are of the finite and not of the infinite, infinite simply refers to which that is limitless where's finite refers to which that is limited. Do we want to be governed by what is finite or infinite in nature? Considering that human consciousness is limited and that divine consciousness is limitless, we need to make a choice which one we want or even need to be governed by.

Is it wise to be governed entirely by an ideology/philosophy that is infinite in nature while existing in an existence that is governed by finite consciousness?

Infinite consciousness simply means there are no limitations within the expressions of this consciousness; this consciousness therefore is able to be expressed in a finite existence. However, finite consciousness is unable to be expressed within an infinite consciousness because of it's limitations. You simply can't limit yourself to human perspectives within divine consciousness because divine consciousness is divine because it's unlimited (infinite) nature.

I should say when I talk about a divine consciousness, I am talking about a consciousness that is unlimited and infinite in nature, in actuality, divine consciousness is able to create anything and everything because it's not limited.

The following are my replies to other people on a forum, life can be limiting or limitless, this is our choice.

____________________________

I don't faze you do I I Spirit 3, I respect this; you simply just go with the flow within the present, in my mind quite commendable.

Yes, I suppose so, is love and light a creation from it's opposite making the opposite just as worthy as love and light or visa-versa.  I suppose motion works like this, action reaction, push and pull, cause and effect. I was speaking with a Malaysian bloke for some time on and off, he often mentioned the natural flow of the  push and pull effect of motion, my western mind had a hard time comprehending where he was coming from at times but in all it made sense to me.  He basically said all we need to do is get off the treadmill for all motion creates delusions to one extent or another. 

I simply concur, everything is of and comes from spirit/consciousness.

You know how I bag/acknowledge the ways of a black and white mentality, I too express this because how is the ego suppose to become aware if it's not put in a way that the ego can comprehend and understand?  Motion is often of black and white for instance, light and dark dominating each other, however, to get off the treadmill one has to learn the ways of the black and white mentality of the ego, the paradox is, the ego needs a black and white comprehension to do this, to start with, but know when to let go of this black and white mentality as well.

It's indeed all natural but I can see that it might not seem that way as well.

____________________________

Do we need to plan therefore control?  I think the ego needs to plan where our divine self doesn't, what is there to plan when you are everything and are aware of everything?

In my mind, we need to be caring thoughtful of the ego without being controlling, I often think of the ego as my child that needs my loving attention to become aware and adult in it's motions, otherwise it's going to be and act in a self-cantered way like a spoilt brat. I think our present reality shows this.

You don't have to be controlling towards your child, just simply guiding the child through simple awareness. Guiding isn't controlling, it's leading by example, going with the flow of awareness rather than going against the flow of awareness. Control is set to certain specifics of awareness, it's only of the awareness of what can be controlled by the ego, all else is usually discarded or ignored.

The thing with love and light is it's apart of the process that was created by the process itself, the process of the ego being in control. Think of it as a treadmill, the control of the treadmill keeps us in motion but when we get off the treadmill; are we still controlled by the treadmill? We simply got off the process of control. Getting off from one life process creating another life process is the same as getting off from the control of the treadmill; we simply stopped the ego controlling us thus creating yet another process and on it goes.

I think treating the process of love and light as a be and end all is a huge mistake as it's still apart of the process of control. I have spoken to a number of Eastern minded people on this, they all say all we need to do is release ourselves from this control, from this process, to be our whole self. Let's be honest, love and light is still about taking control rather than releasing it. I think the Western mind has a huge problem in comprehending this; it's probably why so many Western minded people are upset with me in what I write, I'm simply seen as a threat to the process of control. 

My stepdaughter Karla has won three world titles in a row now; it's a world record in women's IPSC shooting. We guided Karla rather than controlled Karla.       

The Truth of Isms and Ideologies

Written by Mathew Naismith

Bare with me on this, it gets quite interesting and informative, This is probably one of my most impartial posts I've ever written, at first this isn't apparent though.

Atheism: While on a particular site, it was obvious I was being bullied by an atheist who didn't want to know if any of my perceptions were valid or not, basically, from the start this person had a preconceived perception, nothing I was going to say was going to change this fixated perception based on atheistic ideologies. There was no point from the start in a continuous discussion on anything remotely intellectual that was of my perception but I persevered. 

Even when evidence was obtained from various sources backing my perceptions, I was still called a liar, in actuality, once I provided such evidence, this person became even more noticeably aggressive to the eventual point of using harassment and bullying tactics. The sources I supplied included, quantum physics, psychiatry and philosophy perspectives endorsing my perceptions. The main problem was, if I was remotely correct in my perceptions that a consciousness can indeed exist outside of the brain, it immediately  questions the beliefs of atheism. Now this brings us to atheism being a belief and even a belief system that is purely based on fear alone.

I then posted a post inferring that atheism is a belief system by using the definition from a dictionary as follow, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God". What followed was astonishing to say the least, they were defending their atheism in the same exact way that a religious person with extreme ideologies would. I am talking from actual experiences here. Lets collate some evidence together to get a better picture of this.

1: The dictionaries state clearly it's of doctrines and a belief     

2: These atheists defended their atheism to the same degree a religious person with extreme ideologies would, stooping to unbelievable depths to do so

3: If their science is unable to prove the existence of God either way, this clearly means atheism isn't based on facts but assumptions and speculations

4: Seen as atheism is not based on facts, it must be based on assumptions and speculations  

5: To have such a blind faith in assumptions and speculations, means atheism is also of  faith. This of course depends on the faith an atheist has in regards to pure assumptions and speculations. In this case and other cases where I approached atheists on the same matter, they reacted as if they had utter blind faith of atheism which is purely based on, not facts, but assumptions and speculations.

6: Faith clearly infers a belief. Definition of faith: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. Is not science controlling our destiny?

7: Fear: A belief in an ism (atheism) opposing another ism, such as religion, denotes a reaction that infers fear. Why follow an opposing ism if one is not fearful of another ism?

8: With the reactions I had received from atheists on this site and other sites, they fear there atheism being questioned in anyway what so ever

9: If atheism is the be and end all, why express so much fear resulting in uncivil behaviour? If atheism were of facts, what would they have to fear when atheistic beliefs are questioned? Atheists obviously know that atheism can be questioned but they still stick to atheism as if it's the be and end all, a clear depiction of utter blind faith and dogmatism.

I think all the evidence that has been collated here, infers that atheism is indeed a belief system and based purely on fear, a fear that purposely stays ignorant to any other perceptions not of atheistic beliefs because of fear. Consider this, don't atheists often criticise religion for expressing these same traits that atheists obviously express as well? You can then add hypocritical to their biases. I should point out in all fairness, not all atheists are like this, some atheists, very few it would seem, are quite open minded, they just don't believe in a God or divine entities but I have found out some of them do believe in a consciousness existing beyond the brain.      

Science; like atheism, is purely based on assumptions and speculations, there are no facts in science, if there were, science would be dogmatic within their concepts, science can't be this dogmatic because science knows that the whole of existence evolves and changes, there can be no fixated concepts which means no utter facts. This of course doesn't stop people into science stating that science is about facts which of course infers dogmas, a fixated preconception of concepts and perceptions that can no longer be further proved. This analogy of course is again only an assumption.

General science might be fixated to these facts (dogmas) but quantum physics and metaphysics isn't, when two protons can communicate, not just interact, between each other, physicists know that consciousness isn't just of the brain. Consider this also, what caused the human brain to grow bigger over time, was it the brain miraculously growing bigger through evolution for some reason or was it consciousness causing the brain to grow bigger over time? Our brain grew because of our expanding consciousness, not our consciousness grew because of our expanding brain, conscious awareness causes the brain to grow, this is well known in science to occur. Consciousness before the brain...

Let's take this further, science can now computer emulate creating a mini-universe, did this not take a creative consciousness to do this? This infers that the universe we exist in, could have been created by a consciousness way beyond human comprehension, in actuality, some scientists believe that is exactly what occurred. It's a good idea to do your own research on this, you just might come across something I didn't. I don't want to detract from what you discover through my own perceptions, this is well known to occur.

New Age spirituality; is also based on fear, the fear of fearing and the fear of being in judgement and the fear of expressing the ego altogether. To know that fear is of being of fear, one has to judge what is and isn't fear. What makes us feel fear? A judgment of fear when fear can be highly beneficial to making us more aware. It's a bit silly denouncing fear when it can be so beneficial to us if used correctly.

How often do new age spiritually aware people denounce religion as being based on fear? Is this also not of judgment and slightly hypocritical? How often do these same people judge science as being some how of a lower vibration or less worthy in some way to their own beliefs? Consider this, is not all of what was created, from the same source of energy? Isn't everything of this source therefore worthy within it's own right? Everything has equal value, this also includes atheism and agnosticism.

Religion: The way religion is expressed by church leaders, especially in the west, can be totally based of fear at times, the bible can also be interpreted as being based on fear and on fables. The bible however can be interpreted in many different ways. I found if you read the bible as a non-fiction book, the bible makes no sense until you read it as a fiction book. When you read the bible as a friction book, you begin to become aware of the hidden meaning of the bible which then refer to a book based on non-fiction. The bible is encoded and if you are unable to read in symbols, the bible will stay a fiction book based on fear and fables. It's very difficult to read something that is of the infinite with finite perceptions. 

All these isms and ideologies are based on assumptions and speculations, a person into science or atheism  might say that science is  more of factual assumptions and speculations than religion or any other ideology, of course a religious person would state otherwise. People into science/atheism and religion might also state that their ism and ideology are more than assumptions and speculations but this is purely based on their own perceptions, not on other perceptions. In actuality,  no ism or ideology is more worthy than another when they were all created from the same source.

How many isms actually concur impartially to all this? Very few because each ism has it's own fixated preconceived perceptions based on their own perceptions. It's preconceived because usually each ism has it's own perceptions, anything out side these perceptions are usually denounced as being somehow less worthy of consideration.

The point is, everything was created from an infinite source of energy, facts however are of a finite perception because they have limitations where assumptions and speculations are infinite. For any ism or ideology to proclaim their of facts, their actually stating their perceptions are only of the finite, religious people and atheists mistakenly, in my mind, do this on a regular basis, especially when they are in opposing opposition with one another. It's this act of opposing that causes a consciousness to perceive primarily in the finite, which to me is always going to lead to conflict, this I believe will only stop when we start to perceive in the infinite. In a religious/spiritual sense, this infinite represents the connection to the source of all creation known to many as God or the source of all creation, I'm not sure if atheism and science have a name for this infinite source of energy but matter itself, matter and anti-matter.     

Perceiving Beyond All Our Fixations

Written by Mathew Naismith

To evolve, everything has to move on, at times this also means the demise of an animal, like the dinosaurs, or the way we physically interact in life like the way we shop or travel. We no longer use a horse a cart like we used to for a very good reason. Trust me, when the horse and cart were being phased out, certain people kept on trying to use the horse and cart over and above motorised vehicles when it was no longer viable or sustainable to do so.

The magic word here is viable because when something obviously becomes unviable,  it becomes redundant and non-progressive towards evolving and if we have too much of an attachment to such practices, stagnation sets in and then most often a reversal of our situation occurs. 

Before I go on, I think we need to look at the definition of fixation to get a better understanding of how our own fixation most often hinders us from evolving.        

- An abnormal state in which development has stopped prematurely

- An unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation with something or someone

- The activity of fastening something firmly in position

To move on just isn't to do with the way we physically conduct ourselves in life, it's also includes to mentally and spiritually evolve from our present situation. This at times also means letting go of our present fixations to what ever ideology, religion, philosophy, path, or what ever we have become fixated to. Have many of us actually taken notice of how nature evolves?  Nature doesn't fixate itself to anything and try to hold onto it no matter what, unless it's still viable and sustainable within the present environment. Everything of nature either adapts to the present environment or becomes redundant to the present environment thus dies out.

We however still today have crocodiles and alligators that have not yet evolved mainly because they are still viable and sustainable to their present environment. This also means that not all our ideologies, religions, philosophies or  paths we are presently following, are unviable and unsustainable.

How do we know when to move on to evolve or not?  Like the alligator and the crocodile, are our fixations still viable to our present environment?

Lets look at our present environment, it's quite noticeably chaotic and destructive, would not anything we have presently fixated ourselves to, conductive and viable to this present environment? In actuality, human history is full of chaos and destruction, this has created our present fixations, in other words, our present fixations were created from and due to this chaos and destruction, isn't it time to let all these fixation go? It would obviously seem not, like the dinosaur, anything trying to hang on till the bitter end, will perish in the end anyway if it no longer fits within the present environment.

I've recently been writing about perceiving beyond our present ideologies and philosophies, this hasn't gone down to well with a lot of people, it wasn't well received at all. A particular group of people stood out in particular, to my amazement, the ideology/philosophy they follow, obviously religiously, was the be and end all, it was better than Christianity and Islam for various reasons to start with but again in whose perception?  Just because an ideology/philosophy is the be and end all for us, this shouldn't mean it the same for everybody else but it would seem it is according to certain groups of people.

I had five different people, from the same belief system, state that their ideologies/philosophies wasn't a religion or an ideology for starters, I of course proved otherwise, only one of these people could see my view however, that's not a good percentage. Being this fixated to an ideology/philosophy isn't healthy, in actually, you can see how such ideologies/philosophies have been created by a reality of chaos and destruction. To create chaos and destruction, you need a consciousness that won't evolve, this means such consciousness won't become aware and wise beyond it's present environment, in this case chaos and destruction. It is obvious fixation are the cause of this chaos and destruction in the first place, this will of course create ideologies and philosophies that fit within this environment!!

We don't realise we no longer need these ideologies and philosophies that were created from such reality, we can move on from this and evolve, OR, yes, we can also stagnate and eventually deteriorate, one way takes wisdom to accomplish, the other a pure absence of wisdom!! 

In a true sense , we never really needed ideologies and philosophies in the first place, all what ideologies and philosophies represent is a desire, a desire to fixate ourselves to something rather than to nothing. As I have always stated in my writing, there is a big difference between living for a need and living for  a desire, one will create the reality we are presently experiencing, the other a reality few of us can imagine.  

Ideologies and Philosophies and Beyond

Written by Mathew Naismith

I was recently asked what is my point I'm trying to make when making reverence to perceiving beyond present day ideologies and philosophies. My point certainly isn't that ideologies and philosophies should have no further part in our lives, so what is my point? I think the following should explain this in some way to some extent, I gave this in reply to someone asking me what is my point.

My point is perceiving beyond these obvious limited ideologies/philosophies, especially when people of one ideology/philosophy think their ideologies/philosophies are in anyway somehow above other people's ideologies/philosophies.

In one sense Buddhism is, but in another sense so is Hinduism and Christianity but only to a person who looks beyond these belief systems and isms.

I will explain this further using the sciences as an example.

General science is limited to logics, if it doesn't make logical sense or can be logically proven at a particular point in time, it can't exist. Logics in this case is used as an ideology in a sense that logics is fixated to one point of reasoning, any other reasoning process other than logical is disregarded. The problem with this kind of reasoning or perception is that it is limited to logics, in this case logics within general science has become a doctrine, a belief that if it isn't logically proven, it can't exist.

Like with religions/ideologies, there are different sciences and philosophies that use  different reasoning processes, metaphysics is one and quantum physics is another.  These science techniques perceive beyond the normal practice of general science, does it make these science techniques more superior than general sciences? At first we would say most definitely yes, however, this isn't the case. For example, people into Buddhism or Christianity seem to perceive that their religion/philosophies are superior in some way but the question is to whom?

I recently received the following reply from a good internet friend of mine. 

In discussion once, I mentioned that I see the Creator as a single source; I did, however, acknowledge that much is perspective, illustrating by saying "what appears to be a star from a distance, can become a galaxy on closer inspection.

This is a prime example of someone perceiving beyond a fixated perception that the creator is of a single source, even though the perception at that point in time tells us that the creator is of a single source.

In this case you could perceive that a philosophy, not influenced by ideological concepts, is being used here as a true sense of philosophy never fixates itself to a particular concept or idea. I know this person perceives beyond the thinking mind and uses the inner mind, in other words this person uses a mind not influenced by the five senses. This person still uses the mind influenced by the five sense, but, they obviously, to me, also use what I call the inner mind.  We of course all use the mind influenced by the five senses and logics at times in one way or another. 

If anyone is interested, this person also has their own Google community titled World Peace. 

https://plus.google.com/communities/109431684679824288779?hl=en   

To whom is a particular ideology/philosophy more superior or more of the absolute truth than other ideologies and philosophies?

If I met Buddha, for example, and he started telling me how he's perceptions are the be and end all, they are supreme to all other perceptions, I would just simply laugh at him for the simple reason no ones perception is supreme over and above another.  For example, are the sciences or Hinduism the answer to all of what is? The answer to this is simply no, consciousness itself is infinite, this means it's forever changing and is  endless within it's possibilities and creations. This also means consciousness isn't fixated to one perceptions or group of perceptions, it's basically boundless and unlimited within it's perceptions.

Lets say my perceptions were actually the be and end all, they were supreme over all other perceptions, in this case I would be able to become aware of the worthiness of all other perceptions, as within the present, each perception has it's place within consciousness as a whole.

OK,  lets put it another way, if I was a devout Christian, would it be wise for me to go into an environment destructive towards such perceptions? Within that present moment, Christianity is more harmful to me, it basically has no value in such an environment, however, if I was to perceive and adjust to my present environment, my experiences would be a lot different. 

What would happen to Buddha and Jesus, for example,  if they returned? They wouldn't last long even though their perceptions go way beyond normal human perceptions. This means their perceptions have no substance or creed within such a reality, there perceptions are seemingly worthless even though their perceptions are more aware and wise.

It matters not how aware or supreme a perception is, either it be an  ideology, philosophy or science, if such perceptions don't belong within a certain reality, they are meaningless. Indeed, a lot of what I write about is meaningless within this reality, it just doesn't fit within the main stream of things, so why do people like me still express themselves? 

Simple, if I wasn't supposed to be able to perceive the way I do, I wouldn't be able to. No matter how you perceive,  it's worthy, maybe not too worthy within the reality we are presently experiencing but it's still worthy no matter what perception you express and follow. This means what ever ideology, philosophy or science you perceive through, it's still worthy no matter what environment you are in, however, just because the ideology, philosophy or science you perceive through is your be and end all, doesn't mean it's everybody else's!!  

The question is now, have people like me adjusted to our present environment?  Absolutely, but not at the total expense of our own perceptions, its wise to adjust to the conditions of our environment for only in this can we still express our own perceptions to some degree.

The controlling ego doesn't like to adjust or compromise for within this, it loses control, it's this simple!!             

Religions, Ideologies and Paths

Written by Mathew Naismith

The importance of religions, ideologies and paths to the human psyche is quite apparent as human history plainly shows, after all, most of our history is made up from such attachments. 

Recently I had a person state that their religion (ideology)  isn't an ideology, it's a path, of course if it's not an ideology it's also not a religion. Buddhism is certainly a religion, it has doctrines and belief systems that define what Buddhism is about, without such guidelines, the human psyche would have nothing to attach itself to.  Basically,  the human psyche represents the ego in some way, in a true sense, the ego is unable to attach itself or comprehend an ideology without labels. For starters Buddhism, like any religion, has a label, Buddhism is obviously of the ego for the ego created it.

It would seem the human psyche needs the ego to comprehend anything, to do this of course entails the ego to attach labels on anything it wishes to comprehend. Of course the ego goes further than this when an attachment occurs to such labels, with such labels in this case, doctrines and concepts are formed, basically making such ideologies the be and end all. One example is to state that God doesn't exist in any sense, of course not all Buddhists conform to this doctrine, such Buddhists are able to perceive that everything has come from one source that a lot of religions call God. In a sense, there is a God in one source but not as in a deity of any kind for all of what is, is of this one source.

You also have religions that have more than one God and Goddesses, Buddhism see this as an attachment to the ego, in doing so, looks upon it's own ideology as being more correct in some way above these other religions. Having to have a label to follow is ego, to express it's own ideology (path) as being more correct in any sense is even more of an ego. I should point out that not all Buddhists express themselves in this way, there is no need for all has it's place within this one source for it is of this one source no matter how it expresses itself.

I should also point out here that Christianity is also well known to be the path to righteousness, this known path doesn't make Christianity not an ideology just because it's all to do with a path to righteousness!! 

I've noticed that certain Buddhists and Christians also talk down Hinduism when Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist. Hindus don't have to be governed by strict doctrines or barriers that stop a Hindu from perceiving beyond normal human perception, all ideological concepts and beliefs are obviously accepted within Hinduism. In a sense, Hinduism seems to represent all of existence, being the oldest surviving religions probably says it all.  Don't get me wrong here, I'm not advocating Hinduism over  and above all other ideologies, I'm just stating that Hinduism seems to have no doctrines and barriers that other religions have taken on. Think on this, advocating there is only one God period or that God doesn't exist in any sense, is the ego setting up barriers when consciousness itself has no such barriers. Consciousness itself isn't limited to certain perception of one kind or another,  it's boundless for it has no controlling ego telling this consciousness what and what not to perceive.

I love synchronicity. I recently experienced  a state of just being, there was no labels therefore no ideologies or paths or past and future, only the present of just being.  Within this state, there was interaction of individual forms and energy sources but not in the same sense as in our state of consciousness. Within this state, there was just being for no purpose or intention which gave this state a sense of serenity. The reason for this serenity was obvious to me, labels, ideologies, paths and the perception of a past and future gives consciousness more motion, as soon as we give any energy form more motion, the less serene it becomes.

Look at it in this way, a racing car speeding at 200 miles per hour is less stable than driving at 10 miles per hour, especially on a slippery surface. The more movement we drive the racing car at, the less stable it becomes, we are no different to a racing car. The more labels and ideologies we have, the more motion we create thus the more unstable a consciousness is going to become.

A racing car on a slippery surface becomes unstable because of it's interaction with another energy source, being a racing track,  that isn't conductive of another energy source driving at high speed on it.

In our case, we have ideologies or paths that are non-conducive to other ideologies and paths, the more motion we express within our fixation of our  own ideologies, the more unstable we make consciousness. This instability will of course cause us trauma and chaos.!!           

Choosing Your Own Reality

Written by Mathew Naismith

This is an awkward post to write, actually, I wasn't going to write it, it's going to be too ambiguous for a number of people, meaning, for anyone religiously following a certain ideology, my explanations are going to seem like a joke to them. This is all to do with explaining the different aspects of things like God, ego, soul, for example. In most ideologies, these things only have one meaning, one explanation, all other explanations are irrelevant and wrong, I will however hopefully show this isn't correct, all ideologies have their own truths which in turn creates a certain reality.

Which ideology speaks the utter truth: over and above all other realities, is Buddhism correct over and above Christianity or visa-versa? Is Islam correct over and above Buddhism or visa-versa? Who actually defines what ideology is more correct over and above all other ideologies? This is an important question to answer because the answer to this question isn't ambiguous at all, actually, the answer is quite unambiguous, meaning, the answer to this question is quite obvious.

At present we have religious extremists expressing themselves in a very extreme way, this is wholly do to these people believing their ideologies are the be and end all above all other ideologies. 

What is the driving force behind these extreme reactions, what makes them extreme within their ideology? 

Most people will just look at the ideology itself, in this case, this makes all the people who follow such ideologies, that can be expressed in an extreme way, extremists in some way. This analogy would also make all Christians extremist as well, especially when  considering the religious Dark Ages. Does the actions of Christian extremists in the Dark Ages infer that all Christians today are extremists?  Of course not. Extremism hasn't anything to do with the ideology itself, its to do with the implementation of such ideologies by certain people religiously following an ideology.

If we are religiously following an ideology of one kind, what human trait are we actually expressing to an extreme? Following any ideology religiously is defined as an extreme reaction going by dictionary definitions. The only human trait that can create extremism in any way is egotism as opposed to ego.

So the answer to the question, who actually defines what ideology is more correct is egotism, not the ideology itself. Yes, an ideology can be written in an egotistical way but it's the way a person reacts to this ideology that can cause it to become extreme. I don't know of too many ideologies that aren't written in an egotistical way, God definitely exists, God defiantly doesn't exist. You even have ideologies that state that all other ideologies that have a believe in God and/or soul, are beliefs brought about by delusions, in other words these ideologies are delusional, this is a quite a broad statement to make. This kind of statement says to me that such statement like this are highly influenced by egotism themselves. What other human trait, other than egotism, would state such a statement? 

I've seen people fixated to a certain ideology use science to explain why God and souls don't exist, however, I've also seen people following a different ideology use relevant science that explains that God and the soul do exist, which one again is more correct over another? Egotism will always state my ideology is more correct no matter what.

The point is, no ideology is perfectly correct, however, no ideology is incorrect either, the truth is defined in what reality we presently reside in. Does God defiantly exist? Most definitely but only in certain realities.

The Infinite Consciousness: There is supposed to be over 8 million realities within this one physical reality, only egotism can state, categorically, which one is more correct over and above all other ideologies. I do find it quite amusing that some ideologies state that all ego expressions are an illusion, but in stating so, have themselves not expressed a form of egotism!!

Consciousness itself is extremely diverse and infinite within it's expression, it ever changing as human history quite plainly shows, which ideology is always correct above all other ideologies?  Once again egotism will say my ideology is always correct but what does a consciousness, not influenced by egotism, actually say?  

All ideologies have merit within their own realities, if you want to create a certain reality for yourself,  follow a certain ideology as it's these ideologies that create a particular reality, in other words each ideology creates it's own reality. For example, Buddhism creates a certain reality as does Christianity, Islam and even materialism, is one reality more correct over and above another reality? Egotism once again will say it is within it's own ideology, it's own reality.

Consciousness itself isn't defined by egotism nor ego, it has not fixed to defined  boundaries, it's infinite within all it's expressions either it be of egotism, ego or a state of being egoless.

Materialism; expresses a state of egotism and creates relative realities according to the ideology being expressed.

Religions like Christianity; mostly expresses ego and  creates relative realities according to the ideology being expressed.

Religions like Buddhism; creates a state mostly void of the ego and creates relative realities according to the ideology being expressed. One might judge, "To express materialism is less worthy than to express Buddhism for example, one is more of a delusion than another". The only part of the humans self that will make this statement is egotism. 

Consciousness is that vast and infinite within it's expressions and non-expressions, there are no true delusion, the only delusion there is, is only knowing that we are only of one of these realities. We are not just egotism or ego nor egoless, we are all of what is.

In all, is it wrong to just choose one reality to exist by? I will answer this with another question, is it wrong in being physically human? Experiencing being human is experiencing one reality, this isn't wrong no matter what way we express ourselves, we can however express ourselves to the point of being highly destructive though, even this isn't wrong. When we look at our destructiveness only through this reality, destruction is wrong, however, this view changes when we realise we are all of what is, there is no right or wrong, just different expressions of consciousness that a wise collective consciousness would change to something more constructive I feel. 

It matters not what reality you choose to experience, what does matter is how destructive our fixation to a reality can become when expressed to an extreme.                           

Infinite Conscious States

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

                                                  Fig.2

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?  

Being Within Our Own Space

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…….

Consciousness Mapped Out

Written by Mathew Naismith

I was utterly being nagged last night, nagging is a form of shouting and shouting comes about through me not listening to the whispers, so what wasn’t I listening to this time? We are already there; all we have to do now is become aware of this.

What this seems to mean is man has accomplished in becoming aware of an expanded consciousness beyond from what he understands through his ideologies, in other words he has expanded on his awareness beyond the ego collectively. This doesn’t need everyone to become this aware for this to affect the collective for the main reason, all of consciousness is connected in whatever form it takes.  What this all seems to mean is we, as a collective, have consciously changed to a more expanded awareness, so if this is the case why aren’t we noticing this change, where is the physical manifestation of such a change?

Before a physical manifestation can occur, a mental manifestation needs to be established and to do this we must become aware of such changes have actually occurred, how do we do this? Through people like myself who are being nagged or more importantly listening to your own whispers or shouting as in my case!!

Because all consciousness is connected, no matter in what way we are expressive of this consciousness, if a certain number of people’s awareness has expanded beyond their ego this will affect the collective.  Spiritually aware people are certainly expanding on this collective consciousness every time they go beyond what is determined by the ego, beyond our set ideological principles. This is the reason I haven’t set myself to one ideological principle, I actually took on principles that seemed to most people contradict each other, the more aware I became the less these principles contradicted each other.

Ideological principles, like science and religion for instance, are but expressions of consciousness in a certain way, each ideology is conductive to a certain expression of this consciousness as I will explain further by explaining what I see what each ideological principle relates too. First of all I will start with consciousness itself.

Consciousness- To me consciousness is everything no matter what that consciousness is either is be of an ideological principle, another animal species or even a rock, it’s all of what consciousness is or what God’s consciousness is.  Our conscious and subconscious thoughts are also of consciousness itself, there is truly no separation, everything is consciousness.  

Awareness- Awareness is to do with being aware of parts or all of consciousness itself, this is usually acquired through books/education, physical/mental experiences, praying, mediating, chanting and so on. The more aware we become the more aware of this consciousness we are and the less aware we are the less aware of this consciousness we are.  Awareness is about the consciousness and the more conscious we become the more aware we are.  

Religion- Religion is but another ideological principle we use to become aware, it is specific within it’s principles like any other ideology of it’s kind and is but one way to become aware of God’s consciousness.  It is questionable if religion itself would survive if God was found to be non-existing, in certain cases certain religions might fold but in other cases I don’t think this would be the case, Buddhism is one example of this.  

Science- Science is but another ideological principle that is specific within it’s principles, it will, in a different way to religion, give us more awareness of God’s consciousness.  Science doesn’t actually rely on anything to be true because science isn’t about truth but about speculations.  

Spirituality- Spirituality itself has a huge spectrum of principles, it’s not specific, it can incorporate principles like science and religion under one ideological principle, it has no boundaries and is usually seen by other more specific  ideologies as being too unspecific resulting in a mishmash of made up principles.  However Yoga is a good example of how spirituality works; yoga incorporates science, religion and mind/body control and exercises quite constructively.  

Ego- The ego can also be of a specific principle, the self. This principle of the self can and does corrupt any other ideologies, usually turning them into something that can be quite destructive however when the ego isn’t about the self, it can be quite constructive.  A controlling ego will judge a good or bad but an ego not in control will observe without a specific judgement of a good or bad.

Atheism- Atheism itself has very strict specific principles, the existence of deities and a God(s) just can’t exist within the principles of atheism.  If deities of any kind were found to exist, the principles of atheism would become irrelevant making the ideological principles of atheism itself redundant.  Atheism totally relies on their belief that God(s) and deities just don’t exist; it’s a very specific ideological principle.  

All the above is representative of consciousness and each has it’s own way in becoming aware of this consciousness.  We have a huge array of ideological principles to choose from, some are specific of certain principles, other ideologies utilise many principles, these are all a part of consciousness itself and of course some are more helpful of becoming more aware of this consciousness and others less so.

It would seem however a certain number of people have accomplished in expanding their awareness beyond our present ideologies; I just wouldn’t get such a message as I did if this wasn’t so especially in the way it was shouted at me.  So where do we go from here?  Just believe and feel within yourself that we are there mentally and spiritually beyond any specifics of any ideology, it’s a kind of culmination of all ideologies which means the culmination of all of what consciousness is.  

These ideological principles were very important to us especially if we learnt to use them without a controlling ego controlling our actions and feelings, without the controlling factors of the ego, all ideologies either become constructive or redundant.  It would seem certain people have used these ideological principles in a constructive way.  Once we truly realise we as a collective have expanded beyond the controlling ego, we then realise we were never really of the controlling factors of the ego, it’s just the way we used these ideological principles that made us believe we were!!