Showing posts with label middle ground. Show all posts
Showing posts with label middle ground. Show all posts

Sunday, 1 June 2014

Constructive Ego, Middle Ground

Written by Mathew Naismith

The following was a discussion between a bloke called Eddie and myself about my last post, Meditating Using Awareness and Visualisation.  This discussion brought something out of me that I thought was interesting, constructiveness isn’t in opposition to destructiveness , it’s actually the middle ground between thought and thoughtlessness.  And please don’t take anything here as gospel, I’m only relaying on what I deemed as an interesting conversation.

Thoughtlessness is the understanding of who and what we really truly are. We are indeed the creator and the engineer of thoughts ourselves for the renewal of deluded existences which is not belonging to oneself but delusions (empty cloud).

Eddie Lau I like the middle ground between thought & thoughtlessness. 

Mathew Naismith Thoughtlessness is the so called the middle ground between the self-created thoughts/conditioned memories, renewing its own existences like the cycle of clouds formations that look solid but empty in reality. The realisation of these clouds/thoughts which are empty, ceases its formation naturally without slightest/subtlest effort.

For some reason I see the middle ground as being between thought and thoughtlessness, could be my human conditioning.

To me thoughtlessness is pure consciousness without any push and pull effect, in other words consciousness isn't reacting to itself.

Thought on the others hand has everything to do with consciousness reacting to itself.

The middle ground to me is therefor between thought and thoughtlessness. It's consciousness reacting to itself in a non-destructive way.  In this middle ground the ego becomes constructive.

You could say thoughtlessness, being of neither destructive nor constructive, is the middle ground which is feasible however I feel constructiveness is the middle ground.

The reason for this, just because this middle ground is constructive doesn't mean it's in opposition to destructiveness.

Putting the middle ground as being neither destructive nor constructive separates constructive from destructive; in this we have created barriers.

To me the middle ground has to be constructive neither of thought nor thoughtlessness. Destruction needs constructive to exist for something to destroy, there not opposing at all.

However if the destructive ego becomes overly dominant this is when destruction becomes opposing to constructiveness. On the other hand when constructiveness becomes dominant over destruction we don't get an opposing conflict because again destruction needs constructiveness to exist. They coexist without being opposing between thought and thoughtlessness. It's actually thoughtless to be out rightly destructive!!              

Saturday, 24 May 2014

Spirituality and the Middle Ground

Written by Mathew Naismith

I've come across so many people reacting to bad with good, negative with positive, hate with love, thoughtlessness with thought and so on but of course I have also come across people doing quite the opposite as well, bad reacting to good etc.  This all comes down to action reaction, reaction to action and so on; it’s a cycle we have become stuck in so what’s the answer?

I decided to allow this middle ground between thought and thoughtlessness to become into being so I went on the net to find other people’s interpretation of this middle ground. The first link to come up was as follow, I didn’t have to look any further.

The following is my reply to this post.

Middle ground…..what is the middle ground between thought & thoughtlessness, positive & negative, bad & good?

The reason I ask is many of us are reacting to thought with thoughtlessness, bad with good, negative with positive. Is this any better to bad reacting to good, negative to positive, thoughtlessness to thought? The point is, when either reacts to the other, (action reaction), this is continuing a cycle of action reaction, reaction to action, action to reaction & so on. What would happen if we found middle ground? There is no action to cause a reaction; we are not trying to oppose anything within our actions because there is no action being taken against or for anything.

A lot of people call this silence or thoughtlessness as opposed to noisiness/thought however that isn’t the case at all, it’s neutral ground with no opposites to react too.

Thanks for this post as you have helped me make up my mind to allow this middle ground to be. We don’t have to find this middle ground because it’s always been there, actually everything else but this middle ground we have to search for which takes reactions to actions over & over again until we find what we are looking for.

Love & best wishes,

A bloke of the name of Eddie, whom I have been in conversation with recently, also names this action reaction as push and pull.  As soon as we pull we have created a pushing effect like for example reacting to life with love, this is pulling.  The opposite is the pushing away of anything not of this love.  Every time we act to an action we are reacting which causes obvious friction, this is because when we react we are obviously reacting to something in opposition otherwise we wouldn’t react in the first place to anything.  Take note when you react next time, you will be amazed what you become aware of out of your own reactions.

In my last post I wrote about how love is a neutraliser however this is only the case if we are not loving in reaction to an opposing reaction like hate, chaos, greed ego etc. All this will do is continue this never ending cycle of chaos.  In our case, because we react with extremes like hate to love, this never ending cycle has created chaos.  Some could say if love wins out over all other opposition we will live in a never ending cycle of love & peace however all I think we will do is continue the cycle of chaos

The reason for this is reaction to action, love in reaction to everything else not of love which of course denotes friction and this friction often turns into chaos.  How could love be of friction when it’s done through love, love doesn’t denote friction?  But it does to anything not of this love.

Anything we react too is of lust/desire, a desire to create a life in opposition to what we have now however what if we didn’t react lustfully or react at all but accept this middle ground to just be without opposites fighting it out all the times?  It’s these opposites fighting it out that makes us quite unaware of this middle ground which is neither of thought or thoughtlessness, bad or good etc.

Yes love is a neutraliser if we use it correctly like with anything. Find this middle ground with love and without using this love in reaction to anything and all will befall thee.