Showing posts with label motion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label motion. Show all posts

Monday 27 May 2019

Consciousness of an Enlightened One



Written by Mathew Naismith

An enlightened one (person) is confronted with a positive loving person and a negative hateful person, according to the ego, within their own immediate environment. Neither person is treated any different to the other. So wouldn't the enlightened one feel negative vibrations from the person who is negative and hateful, and positive vibrations from the person who is positive and loving?

If you understand this kind of enlightened consciousness, you will be aware that this kind of consciousness is unable to feel negative or positive vibrations, for all separation of negatives and positives are determined and created by the ego. The only way that any consciousness can feel negative and positive vibrations, is to separate consciousness into parts. Of course the only part of us that does this is the ego. Make no mistake though, only the ego can determine if the ego is negative because of it's separation of consciousness. The main natural attribute of the ego is to separate thus create motion, therefore all that is motion is ego.

Take speeding along in a car, the ego has separated its immediate environment, the vehicle, from the rest of the environment. The perception of speed can only be determined through the separation of one environment from another.   


We might then think to get from one point to another we need motion which relates to distance/space therefore time.

Motion is not time but can be determined or influenced by time, however, ego directly relates to motion but motion is not always related to time. Why? I remember hearing about a traveller who stopped in one town in outback Australia, who saw the same exact aboriginal boy in one town than in another hundreds of kilometres away in the same day. Consciousness, even being of time, isn't always determined by the factors of distance therefore time, but motion is always determined or created by the ego. The ego determined to be in one place one minute and in another place in another minute.  

For the enlightened one, a consciousness that is not determined or influenced by time, motion or ego, therefore not of separation, will understandably treat each person as being simply expressive of motion therefore ego.

Is one vibration or motion more pleasant or unpleasant than another? To an enlightened one, all that one is aware of is that one existence is of the ego (motion), and the other of egoless (motionless), all else is simply a perception created by the ego. In saying this, there is still no separation of the ego or egoless consciousness.

How many people today think we all came from a starting point, being it love and light, a state absent of the ego or of some higher state of being? Considering this higher state not to be determined by time/motion, when did the starting point of a lower consciousness begin in a timeless motionless state? As of the egoless self, the ego self has always existed, it's just that the ego can seem more in motion within time. Make no mistake, the ego always desires to be of some kind of higher state of being, and to have only started off from this higher state.

In all honesty, the ego can just as much if not more so be expressional of motion in the absence of time. As what we call physical is not really all that physical compared to other existences, just denser within its motion, within its physicality. When a consciousness is determined by time, the consciousness in this kind of motion naturally becomes denser; giving the experiencer an incorrect perception of what represents a physical existence. All of what is physical within the universe is simply a reflection of what is truly physical, of the ego. Time doesn't determine what is more physical, but motion/ego does. Time simply makes a consciousness denser in motion, not more physical.

Think on this. A mathematician will often visualise a mathematical formula to then express this visualisation in a denser format which is then determined by time, space and distance. An architect or inventor will do the same, thus creating what seemed non-physical into something physical, something that takes up space therefore is determined to be more physical, not just simply denser!!

So why doesn't an enlightened one treat or see a difference in a negative hatful person compared to a positive loving person? As of myself, a very difficult conscious state to truly comprehend to any great extent, probably because of our conscious conditioning to motions determined by time. 

Tuesday 21 August 2018

Living Consciousness



Written by Mathew Naismith

There are a number of different sources of information in relation to living consciousness, each has their own views on living consciousness but what is living consciousness? I have included two sources in relation to this topic further on in my post.

Living consciousness is basically perceived as representing an energy source in motion while in participation; this is instead of a consciousness not in motion. To get an idea what represents a consciousness in motion and not in motion, imagine being an observer to participation. Being a participator is obviously of motion, however, being an observer judging or perceiving, for example, a negative or positive, is also of participation. Full on observation is observing participation void of any motion (participation) what so ever. Participation refers directly to motion therefore a living consciousness, however, as I will explain further on in this post, this only represents a consciousness that is half alive, half aware.

So does this mean a consciousness not of motion is dead as opposed to living?

In true state of observation therefore motionlessness/timelessness, nothing is in opposition as there are no perceptions of opposites. In this state everything is as one, for only in time is there starting and ending points therefore opposing forces like birth and death, light and dark, high and low, etc. Does consciousness actually go into a state of death from a state of life after our demise? Time, therefore motion and participation, tells us it does but timelessness, therefore motionlessness and observation, tells us something quite different. If you perceive that a major shift in energy flows from one state to another, like from birth to death, is a state where consciousness dies, a complete state of death is perceived. However, when we truly observe without participation, no true form of separation of one state to another has occurred. In a state of observation there are no perceptions, there is only awareness void of any separation therefore motion what so ever.

Perceived living consciousness = motion + participation + time + perceptions + separation

Non-living consciousness = motionlessness + observation + timelessness + awareness + oneness

It's really advisable not to perceive that a non-living consciousness is dead or represents the death of a consciousness. Within this state you actually become more alive as you become more aware. Yes, there is a connection with being aware and life. How aware is an insect to life, to its own existence, than man? Man is more aware of life than an insect, however, how many people are aware of an existence of consciousness after death? It's as though we are only half alive when not of the awareness of consciousness's existence after our so-called death. We are basically living in participation wile excluding observation, a separation of participation and observation. What occurs when we become more observant? We become more aware even in our present state!!

Living consciousness actually refers to both motions and motionlessness, time and timelessness, participation and observation, etc, void of separation of one to the other. 

A good way to practice in observation is to go on an internet forum and simply observe without judgment. It's a lot better if you observe what you perceive to be negative in some way; this can include anything that questions your own personal and professional beliefs/concepts to anyone's actions that disgusts you. Condition your consciousness to wholly observe at first and when you feel comfortable in observation, interact/participate with other people. Note, when in participation, avoid any participation with anyone who is obvious within their aggression towards you at first. You will soon be able to participate with people who are obvious within their aggression latter on. It's actually advisable to do this, only when comfortable to do so, as this will condition you to then observe your own participation under duress or strain. Yes, you will have to still block some people. I don't ignore people while in participation; I see this as being rude and disrespectful so I block certain people instead but only after a certain amount of interaction.                                


Extract: Throughout the work, Barnard offers “ruminations” or neo-Bergsonian responses to a series of vitally important questions such as: What does it mean to live consciously, authentically, and attuned to our inner depths? Is there a philosophically sophisticated way to claim that the survival of consciousness after physical death is not only possible but likely?



Extract: Living consciously is about taking control of your life, about thinking about your decisions rather than making them without thought, about having a life that we want rather than settling for the one that befalls us.

_______________________________

I don't actually conform to taking control of our life. For me, it's more about letting go of control of motions; this gives us more free will to choose how we want to live our lives while living a life in motion. You really don't have to be in control therefore controlled by motion to be of a living consciousness.......        

Wednesday 15 August 2018

Quelling Our Reactions, Our Motions.



Written by Mathew Naismith

Where most spiritual teachings, especially Eastern teachings, teach and guide us to express less motions through practices and awareness like meditation and oneness, we are expressing more motions and not just in the West.

I was thinking of winding back my interactions, my own motions, for a while, thinking that my readers and I need time out, my dreams stated otherwise last night. One dream seemed quite long on the subject of our excessive/extreme reactions. It is psychologically understandable that a consciousness that judges parts of humanity as negative and even toxic or demonic, will desire to feel better by any means. This includes means that express excessive/extreme motions in reaction.

Let's be honest, love and light and positive thinking is in counteraction, a reaction to what we perceive to be negative, toxic, demonic, etc. What would our reactions be if we didn't judge certain parts of humanity as being all these things? The odds are that we wouldn't be as expressive of excessiveness/extremes as we are now. What occurs when a white man judges a black man being negative in any sense to the white man? This kind of action usually creates a reaction of excessiveness/extremes. In all honesty, are not a lot of us doing the same by expressing a simular mentality towards a judged negative? This is exactly why I often state about staying away from the perceptions of negatives and positives as much as possible.

In truth, people like me compare the suns violence and destructiveness to man, we observe humanity comes nowhere near to the motions expressed by the sun. So if the sun isn't judged as being negative, toxic and demonic, etc, why are parts of humanity so critically judged in this way? In truth, our reactions wouldn't be as excessive/extreme as they are today, within this, we wouldn't judge humanity so critically. Humanity is what it is, neither perfect nor totally imperfect, just simply lost within its own creation in certain areas and circumstances. Yes, some of our programs, our isms and ideologies, are infected with the virus excessiveness/extremism as explained in my previous posts, however, we can rectify this.

The following interaction between Carolyn and me is on the topic materialism, how materialism is all about the feel good industry at the cost of humanity as a whole. I should state that when we become more aware, feeling good within ourselves and the feel of love and light comes naturally. Instead of materially/physically primarily focusing on love and light and positive thinking in excess and reaction, we spiritually focus on awareness and wisdom that naturally creates love and light and a positive/constructive reality. Imagine creating a more constructive reality that isn't based on excessive/extreme reactions, in other words on far less motions!! Let's be honest, the more motion we create, the more destructive we become, it's the natural law of motion/inertia.

http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law1.html                   

Carolyn's Reply
Very interesting Mathew - as always. I wonder if a possible root of materialism is anything to do with Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest'. Could this subconsciously have been internalised and down the generations emerges in the form of acquiring as much as possible?

Reply
Good question Carolyn. Is it of natural law that the fittest will prevail over all else within a material world? I would have to say yes, I would be lying to myself if I said otherwise.

Is the natural law of spirituality also not of the survival of the fittest? In this case the survival of the most aware within a materialistic reality. In saying this, will the people solely of materialism prevail in the end?

Materialism seems to totally rely on how good we feel; of course how good we feel has become our primary objective, leaving awareness and wisdom way behind in being our primary objective. Awareness tells us to chastise (guide) our children for their own benefit in the long run. Feeling good tells us to not chastise our children for the sake of us feeling good within the present. Chastising children for their own good is also a negative it would seem these days!! 

Indeed Carolyn, in a material/physical world, the laws of the survival of the fittest are absolute, however, what is truly defined as being the fittest? I don't think materialistic feel good isms and ideologies (programs) define the fittest in my mind. Yes, within the present but the energy they use is soon used up as awareness is virtually non-existent. We need awareness to wisely know how to use energy within a physical material existence, this is clearly not occurring.   

As I have said in a previous post, we are a consciousness lost within its own creation, a creation based primarily on feeling good!!

I often find your queries quite compelling Carolyn, a sign of conscious maturity (awareness) in my mind. I often relate conscious maturity to conscious awareness; it's pleasant to see this within you.

Carolyn's Reply
Thank you Mathew! You are always inspiring!

Yes I agree in the survival of the most aware - perhaps the riches we seek are inner ones.
It is interesting what you say about children, as a primary school teacher I see more and more parents unwilling to guide their children, even young ones - it is as if nothing much matters - I notice the 'it doesn't matter' mentality all around these days.

Maybe if we could all sit with our own feelings in moments of stillness we could get to know ourselves better and begin to form healthy relationships with the environment and each other, and ourselves? Just mulling! :)

Reply
A very good example why I saver our friendship. Good one Carolyn, well explained as always.   

Monday 6 August 2018

Unconditional Love Unveiled



Written by Mathew Naismith

Is unconditional love of a mother towards her child or a faithful pet is towards their owner?

In truth, no on both accounts even though a form of unconditional love is being expressed. As soon as unconditional love is expressed, love is no longer unconditional. The conditions are, the child has to be of the mother and the pet has to be owned by their owner. Does a mother love a stranger unconditionally as they do their child? It's simply a form of unconditional love, not a true sense of unconditional love. So what is unconditional love unveiled, shown for what it actually is?

Can we express unconditional love towards flees, ants, lice and weevils, etc? The conditions to be able to express unconditional love in relation to these creatures are what? Even what we perceive to be unconditional love has conditions, at times insurmountable conditions only because all expressions are not of a true form of unconditional love. 

How often do we show a form of unconditional love towards another human, but not what humans rely on for their existence? We could not have created the reality of today without the existence of rock and wood, how many of us even show an ounce of appreciation for rock and wood? How many of us have shown a kind of unconditional love towards rock and wood? There are insurmountable conditions to our expressed love.

Everything that exists within a reality of motion is a form of an expression of one kind or another, expressing a truer form of unconditional love within this kind of existence is futile. However, even while experiencing an existence in motion, one can be of unconditional love as opposed to expressive of unconditional love.

First of all, try to imagine unconditional love not being of motion but motionless, a state often known as zero point, nothingness, pure awareness, emptiness, etc. Believe it or not, these states refer to the same state however, for example, how can nothingness also be of pure awareness?

From a consciousness primarily conditioned to motion, any state of motionlessness is going to be perceived as being of nothingness, totally empty, this would also have to mean empty of awareness. Imagine the wind not blowing. Just because the wind is not blowing, doesn't mean the wind doesn't exist or isn't present, it simply means the wind is virtually motionless. For many of us, if the wind isn't blowing means the wind doesn't exist. As of anything within a reality of motion, there is movement no matter how subtle it might be.

Now, imagine how a consciousness, conditioned to motion, would perceive a state of motionlessness. It would be perceived to be completely void of anything and understandably so.

Imagine being in a state where there are no conditions. Yes, certain humans have reached this state by simply being of unconditional love instead of trying to be expressive of unconditional love. There are simply no conditions to what your love is of, as soon as we try to express this love, we then define what this love is going to be expressed to. Certainly not to rocks and trees or the entire universe we rely on for our very own existence. Within this motion we have created huge amounts of conditions. Within all motions there are conditions, this is why unconditional love is of motionlessness, states of perceived nothingness/emptiness.

States of motion = conditions + love + expressions + separation

States of motionlessness = no conditions + unconditional love + non-expressions + union  

When you come across someone who is like being of unconditional love, are they expressive of unconditional love or simply naturally without effort exude unconditional love, there is a difference? Imagine having as much love for rocks and wood or Earth period as you do your child. Don't get me wrong here, not everyone who is perceived to be unconditionally loving towards Earth/nature is expressing unconditional love. Often these people will show less love towards humans for there actions towards Mother Nature as a whole.

This motionlessness state seems to be the ultimate state. Not at all. All of what is, is the ultimate state without separation of states of motion and motionlessness. Of course, only in states of motion can separation occur, especially the separation from a state of pure awareness to states of unawareness. I find this interesting, the further we become unaware in this separation, the more expressive of hate and of unacceptance we become. It is then quite understandable that less motion we express, the more unconditionally loving we become. Really, another expression for a state of unconditional love is a state of pure awareness or oneness; of course to become purely aware or of oneness takes one to free oneself completely of conditions.

I think to truly comprehend and understand what I am saying here, takes one to have experienced certain states of awareness as opposed to unawareness. There are as many experiences that can be experienced that will make us less aware, than there are experiences that will make us more aware. This is where wisdom comes into it; no experience can make you less aware within a state of wisdom.

By not separating states of motionlessness from motion is more of a Hindu/Taoist concept than a Buddhist concept, all is worthy and a natural part of existence as a whole. Yes, the ultimate state to human consciousness is going to be a state of oneness/pure awareness, however, once in this state, all of existence is realised to be worthy and of the ultimate state void of separation. This is unconditional love unveiled.      

Wednesday 1 November 2017

Outside the 3rd Dimensional Mind


Written by Mathew Naismith

G'day everyone.

Yes, I am still alive, it's been very quiet for me on all fronts except for my dreams. I seem to dream all night, I am far more active in my dreams by far. A lot of my dreams are of motion void of form, in actuality, there is presently a lot of movement in energy void of form within my dreams.

We often relate motion to form as all form relies on motion to exist. The reason for this perception is due to ourselves being conditioned to only relate motion to form, in actuality I find that there is more motion void of form than there is motion of form in the whole of existence. Form is simply an abstract notion or impression of the expressions of formless energies, in other words form owes it's existence to formless energy flows, not the other way around.

Everything that man creates is created through form or is expressed through form, a 3rd dimensional aspect. To comprehend the existence, we put everything within a 3D aspect, within this, conditioning ourselves to believe that all motion is of some kind of form, even vibrations become form. As soon as we measure or evaluate anything, we have put it into a 3D aspect, this is simply done this way so our 3rd dimensional mind can comprehend the existence of these motions. Of course if it can't be measured or evaluated, it simply can't exist to the 3rd dimensional mind.

For man to create anything, the mind thinks in 3D, so everything that man creates has a 3rd dimensional aspect to it, all motion simply becomes some kind of form. This is quite natural and normal for a 3rd dimensional mind to perceive like this.


It's seems laughable to suggest that the majority of motion has no form, but only to a mind that can only perceive in 3rd dimensional aspects. As soon as our mind goes outside 3D aspects, the existence of form becomes like a grain of sand on a beach. Indeed, 3rd dimensional aspects seem insignificant. The expression of motion through form is indeed this insignificant in the whole scheme of existence, however, like each individual grain of sand on a beach is significant to the existence of a beach, form, 3rd dimensional aspects and perceptions, are also significant to the whole scheme of existence!! 

Thursday 5 October 2017

Express Being Truly Unlimited

Written by Mathew Naismith

All that truly exists is an unlimited state; anything else from this is an illusion. A perception of a state of being limited.....Mathew G

A state of limited potential and perception simply doesn't exist. While one being, one entity or one energy source is expressing motion, especially to extremes, a state of limitations simply doesn't and can't exist. Even if I was to limit my personal self, consciousness, to certain states void of the ego, motion period, I am still not in a limited state while any other kind of motion is being expressed in and through anything else. Yes, extremes motion also has it's place within an unlimited state, anything else would be limiting.

Consider this, energy itself is unlimited within it's expressions, within it's motion, this means it's also unlimited to what form it takes. Energy itself is infinite in nature, it's not finite. You can't destroy energy, as science has proven, yes, you can transform the form energy takes but you can't destroy the energy that creates form and existence as a whole. I look at it this way, energy is the spirit within all things, it's the life force of all things, of all motion, without this spirit, without energy, all things become limited. Of course this is impossible as there is no such thing as a limited state.

However, we can indeed enter into states of consciousness or non-consciousness where there is a perception of a state of limitations. Within this state, motion seems to not exist therefore energy; it's a state where the spirit within all things simply doesn't exist. Yes, this state also exists because this is how unlimited we are as a whole, there are simply no boundaries, no limitations even within a limited state.

So often I get people stating they are not expressive of the ego or judgment, while at the same time egotism and judgment is expressed to an extreme through certain kinds of other energy sources. If motion is being expressed in any sense from any kind of source, we are ourselves of that motional expression, everything is. Actually, a state void of ego and motion period is as limited as a state can be, also, being expressive of motion to any extreme is limiting. A good example of this is materialism, wealth and power overriding all other motions especially by force and control. Once a motion, an energy source, loses balance between one in favour of the other, a reality of limited potential exists, this of course inturn creates a reality of limitations. Sounds awfully familiar!!

Any energy or non-energy source that is limited in nature will of course be destructive in nature; this includes the so-called ultimate state where there is no ego or motion period. This state is obvious within it's destructiveness to motion period because motion period is unable to exist in this state. We might not think this motionless state isn't destructive when within this state motion is simply non-existent. How many people are trying to say we are only truly of this motionless ultimate state, while within a state of extreme motions? This state is simply destructive in nature to motion even within states of motion by refuting that we are unlimited to all potential, to motion and motionlessness, not just to one potentiality of motionlessness.

This is why I personally love the perception of God, as opposed to a God of man which is limiting and not infinite in nature. The perception of God represents everything without bias or prejudice, within this, there is simply no exclusions based on a particle perception or ideology/philosophy stating we are limited to a certain states of existence. There are simply no limitations to existence or our truer being; it simply doesn't exist as no state of limitations do. Yes, states of limited potential do exist but not really, not when we consider the whole of things, of course to realise this, one must go way outside our own present reality based on it's own limitations. As a whole, states of limitations need to also exist for there to be truly no limitations.

So what does all this mean?

Extremes of any kind are destructive in nature, either it be of motion being destructive to motionless or visa-versa, it's just simply destructive because it's a state that is limited and imbalanced with the rest of what it is. This is why people like me often mention about moderation and balance within all things without any exclusion through bias or prejudice.

Yes, expressing the ego in moderation, expressing motion period in moderation, is actually more spiritual that not tying to be expressive of motion period. The reason for this simply lies within it's own limitedness, also, at no time is anyone just of one state and not of others, this is an impossibility because these limitations simply don't exist overall but they do exist within their own limitations. This is a true state on unlimited potentiality.


Limited perceptions simply denote an imbalance while unlimited perceptions denote balance. One is naturally destructive to all else, the other constructive to all else, it is what it is by nature.....Mathew G   

Thursday 7 September 2017

Consciousness and Awareness


Written by Mathew Naismith

We often hear the phrase conscious awareness, one not being without the other and one before the other by no mistake. It's like the perception of God or spirit; it's by no mistake that there is a lot of reference made in numerous ideologies to God and spirit before and in reference to man's consciousness. You don't have to be a believer of God or spirit to realise that one comes before the other and is in reference to the other.

However, there is reference or beliefs that awareness is the ultimate state therefore awareness comes before and is not in reference to consciousness in this ultimate higher state of non-consciousness. Ever heard of the phrase what is above is also below? Try being humanly aware of your environment void of being conscious, this is the below, the same is with the above. There is always a consciousness behind awareness no matter how still and silent this consciousness might be.

Because the ego is of motion and can only relate everything to motion to be able to comprehend it, comprehending a pure aware state void of motion is for the ego one thing, comprehending anything beyond this state would be insurmountably incomprehensible. Of course for certain ideologies to comprehend a consciousness beyond this pure aware state would be making reference to a God, a consciousness and a creator of all things. Being the ego the way it is when conditioned to certain specific ideologies, this of course has to be refuted or ignored by the ego.

I am not religious myself but I can see that the perception of God makes reference to a consciousness behind all awareness, no matter how still and silent that consciousness might be. The perception of God also makes reference to a true state of oneness, being that the perception of God directly relates to a true state of oneness and being that God is all of what is through the spirit within all things. It's important to note that this oneness doesn't exclude the ego, motion or time through denouncing them as simply being an illusion.

We ourselves are not able to create anything without being first conscious of what we are going to create, what is above is also below, is this not also for the above as it is for the below? Don't misconstrued me here, I am not advocating that everyone should now believe in a God or a consciousness before awareness, all I am portraying/advocating is that the perception of God makes direct reference to a consciousness before awareness, meaning, there is always a consciousness first and foremost before a state of awareness can exist. I think the perception of God or a consciousness before awareness is by no mistake.

When you look at atheism, do not atheists also believe/know that a consciousness comes before awareness? This is of course excluding Buddhist atheism where pure awareness or nothingness comes before consciousness. You could also question, what is consciousness without awareness, how can a consciousness exist without being aware?

Consider this, what is man's consciousness until it's physically expressed? It's not exactly motionless but it's not of full motion either until physically expressed. What usually make us aware? Motion, no matter how little or great that motion may be. All of man's awareness is brought about by motion, this is the below now is this not then the same for the above?

All this means is that awareness relates to motion but the consciousness behind awareness is not necessarily of motion. A state of pure awareness is motionless because the awareness of everything negates motion. Why is there so much motion around us? Because we are not aware of this motion before it's expressed as a motion, the only way motion can exist is through an unaware state of consciousness thus creating motion. In this case awareness or lack of full awareness has limited consciousness to a finite existence resulting in awareness becoming a motion.

A consciousness of full enlightenment/awareness negates motion by simply being aware of everything. Would we still be warring if we were truly aware? By being limited to certain awareness specifics creates motion where a truly enlightened consciousness simply neutralises the motion within awareness. It's the consciousness behind awareness that determines if awareness is going to be of motion or not.

So can consciousness exist without awareness?

How aware is a micro-organism of it's own existence and of it's environment as a whole? It's simply not, however, are we not more aware of micro-organisms these days? You see, a consciousness is still conscious of a micro-organisms existence, is it not also possible that humans are also in the same situation as a micro-organism, when only aware of themselves and their immediate environment to one extent or another?

Human existence (motion) is entirely governed by our environment, the environment comes first and then human existence, why then do we put ourselves above, our awareness above, our environment that determines our whole existence? Even within our own existence, a consciousness comes before and is the creator of our own existence.

Consciousness is simply unable to exist without awareness as awareness is unable to exist without consciousness, it's just that consciousness can either express awareness as a motion or not. It's consciousness that expresses awareness as a motion as it is consciousness that quietens awareness to the extent of awareness becoming totally motionless. It's the awareness within consciousness that creates motion; consciousness is completely motionless until consciousness becomes aware of awareness in motion.


As we can quieten our own consciousness through various techniques, consciousness as a whole is more likely to be able to quieten it's own consciousness through simply being aware of the motionlessness of awareness. All awareness is of motion until quietened by consciousness, within this, all there is, is pure awareness or a state of consciousness void of motion.                 

Tuesday 29 August 2017

The Flow of Motion




Written by Mathew Naismith       

I am presently active on a forum and I thought I would share a few replies I gave on the topic of ego and narcissism. I didn't insert other people's replies in this case as I simply didn't want to upset people, I also don't usually insert other people's comments from a forum on my posts. 

  __________________________   

An interesting perspective alejo18qd. 

Ego isn't narcissism but can lead to narcissism if the ego is in control. To me, all ego is motion of what is motionless, ego is basically an expression of what Buddhism calls pure awareness or nothingness, meaning, ego is of this motionlessness state expressed as motion.

Motionlessness = egoless

Motion = ego

Narcissism = ego in control. 

Ego is balance because it's neither of what is desired or undesired, only when the ego is in control is the ego of desire to be more than it is or more than what everything else is, for an example, to be more than what a judged old consciousness is, is the ego in control. To desire to be neither is ego and to just be all of what is void of desire is egoless, of motionlessness. 

Pure awareness just doesn't mean being aware of everything, it means being of everything void of bias or desire. Being of everything negates motion therefore ego because once everything is as one, there is no motion because there is no separation, only oneness/motionlessness. Only in separation as in yin and yang is everything of ego, this is until yin and yang become one with each other. 

Yin and yang working together is ego. Yin and yang not working together is egotism/narcissism and yin and yang working as one is egoless/motionless/oneness.

__________________________

Indeed, the so-called old-consciousness is ego but the new consciousness isn't suppose to be but by having and showing disdain for the old consciousness, one is still being exactly what they have disdain for, not just the ego but the ego in control. 

The ego to me simply represents limitations, the more of the ego we become, the more limited we become consciously, of course the more limited we become, the more destructive (hurtful) we become. I think our present reality shows this quite clearly, look upon what we are doing to the Earth and each other. 

So has our controlling ways got something to do with our limitations? I think so for only the ego desires to change everything to it's own desires thus limiting itself only to it's desires

To me, the soul is of the ego but I suppose one must experience this first hand to acknowledge this.

__________________________


A good epitome and query to make Tawmeeleus, if it's all an illusion, does it really matter what the ego does?

Speaking from my own perspective I think it does, however, I do realise from other people's/souls perspective it doesn't. I suppose this is why we have different perspectives and perceptions, each person/soul is simply different within it's own motion.

Is the illusion real or not?

Within the very present it's occurring so it's real, it's really not a real illusion that it's fake, it's only an illusion because the ego creates it that way that we are only of the illusion of time/ego, of course people like you and I know different.

Is time measured in day and night an illusion? Day and night obviously exist on planets but not in outer space but this is but one measurement of time. Distance, volume and cycles are also of time for which the universe is governed by.

In my mind is everything of time/ego an illusion as in fake, not real? No, but time/ego can delude us to think this is all we are, this is the illusion.

So does it matter? To people like me, yes. I simply don't have disdain for the ego for the ego is always apart of us as in motion and has always been a part of us. Motion, time and ego have always existed because there is no starting point of time within timelessness for time to start existing, how can time start to exist within nothingness even as an illusion?


I simply look at time/ego as motion that has always existed and has always been apart of us so yes it matters. 

Tuesday 22 November 2016

Spiritual Primary Objectives


Written by Mathew Naismith

We will certainly find ourselves in a different reality than what we are presently experiencing collectedly at times, this shows in the different ways we respond to various situation in our lives. We tend to behave differently  at times to situations that others around us also experience, this can feel isolating and alienating. Our response can also be misinterpreted by other people around us, most often in relation to their own responses, their perceptions have to be also of ours!!

We also need to be aware that other people's perceptions are not going to be ours either. It's obvious that we can exist in a different reality while experiencing the same collective reality, this is likened to that we have our own personal path to follow while experiencing the same collective human journey.

It's quite understandable that life, while experiencing quite a different path to the human journey, will become daunting to us at times. We will at times be subject to unjust ridicule and abuse, this is inevitable. It's like living as a Christian in an extremist Islamic region of the world, and yes, it can be this daunting at times, actually, for some people it can indeed be this frightening and isolating/alienating.

We can ourselves also become extreme within our judgment of other people following the human journey itself, just because our path might not be of the human journey, doesn't mean the human journey being followed by the mass is wrong or incorrect. We must remember, we are the one's deviating from the collective human journey, within this action, we should expect to be abused and ridiculed. However, the collective human journey is not fixated to a certain journey and yes,  everyone has a right to influence what path this collective human journey takes.

Individually, I've been abused and ridiculed, at times to the extreme, not just by strangers or friends, colleagues and acquaintances, but by family in particular only because I have chosen to follow a different path on my journey. Because I can instantly separate myself from other people's path's, including family members paths, I'm often labelled hateful and spiteful only because I no longer feel at home intermingled within their paths. My whole journey became a completely different path to theirs. You can actually liken this to a spiritualist who goes out to find their inner truer self, they most often separate themselves from friends and family. Within certain cultures in the world, this is accepted, in other cultures it's not.

I can be very close to people and instantly severe this closeness when my own path beckons me to. Yes, I have emotionally hurt certain people by being able to instantly separate myself from their present path, this is by no way intentional. I must, as we all should, follow our own path, this at times isn't always accepted by some people around us. This can't be helped when being true to yourself and following your own path and not being of someone else's path. My families path in particular became no longer of my own path, this was evident in the obvious difference between our paths. The difference between our paths became more and more evident as time went by, I was no longer comfortable or felt at home within their path for various reasons.

As they have become hateful or intolerant of me, I was also supposed to be of them, they perceived that I too was of their path still so I had to hate them but of course that couldn't be further from the truth. I simply no longer had no similarity with my families path, we were obviously going in quite different directions. When I instantly make a decision to separate myself from a path I no longer associate with, there is no malice or hate involved, it's a simple  decision to separate myself from a path that no longer belongs as a part of my path. My journey has become indifferent to the collective human journey, it's this simple but it is then easy to judge how wrong or negative the human collective journey is, this of course isn't the case.

Each journey has it's own paths to follow, as of each and every path, the journey itself has a reason to exist, it's worthy to the souls experiencing a particular journey, maybe not to us any more but it is to them.

This will no doubt seem cold hearted to some people, I can emotionally detach myself from anyone not of my path no matter who they are. I am not permanently fixated to anything through emotions, of course at times separation can be emotionally draining and upsetting for me, after all, separating oneself from someone's path isn't easy, especially when a lot of emotions are involved. As I become more of my primary self, truer inner self, I will indeed feel I no longer relate to a reality, a human journey, that is more of a secondary existence, an existence that is of anything but of it's truer being.

A secondary existence is all about motions. Our hair grows so we have to cut it, we get dirty so we have to wash, we go to work to earn money to survive in a world based purely on motion. A primary existence is anything but of this kind of motion, there is no need of motion to exist. Motion doesn't determine if something exists or not, motion, which all secondary existences are based on, only refers to expressions of motionlessness, motionlessness being of a primary existence. Basically, motions refer to an expression or movement of our motionless primary existence.

The reason why our truer being is associated with our primary existence, has to do with motion itself, as soon as our primary existence is expressed as motion in a secondary existence, these expressions become distorted. The reason for this lies entirely on that motion is created by an ignorance, to one degree or another, of our primary existence. How much motion today are we creating or expressing and how fast is time now seemingly going for us? Now how destructive have we become? Destruction relates directly to motion and how fast motion or time seems to be going, for an example, is a car going slow going to cause more damage when it crashes than going fast? Any energy going fast will cause more damage to anything in it's path than energy going at a slower pace.

Meditating is a prime example of how to slow down our own energy flows. When we meditate, we become more of our primary self, numerous other spiritual practices do the same. In a reality primarily of secondary existence (motion),  a balance of our other existence, the primary existence, is wise, especially when a secondary  existence becomes overly destructive, especially onto itself.

Primary Existence = motionlessness + slow or sedate energy flows

Secondary Existence =  motion + fast or chaotic energy flows


There is a distinct difference between writing
 from experience, and writing from the knowledge of experience.
Wisdom is gained from direct experiences, not knowledge from experiences!!


~Mathew G~

Tuesday 1 November 2016

Various Beliefs of Ego





Written By Mathew Naismith

I've lost count in how many people I have come across that are disillusioned and confused in regards to the ego, this is after these people have followed various spiritual beliefs and practices. In certain cases, these people are now just as much if not more disillusioned and confused, so many beliefs contradict each other on this matter, which one is absolute?        

It's wise to be a aware that a controlling ego (egotism) will state which one is absolute over all other beliefs, any belief that is egotistically free, won't state which one is absolute over another. It's also wise to be aware that there is a big difference between ego and egotism, egotism being an ego in control, ego is just being. Each belief system is of the ego, it was created by ego, this means each and every belief system is of the ego to start with, basically, everything of creation is of the ego, however, not everything is of egotism.

If your not bias (egotistical) within your own beliefs, you will find the following various views from different beliefs quite interesting. They basically say the same thing even though the interpretation of ego varies in regards to certain beliefs. There seems to be a cohesive view that ego can give us the illusion of separation from, nothingness, God, zero point, oneness, inner self, our truer being and so on.
_____________________________
Zen

Extract: “The anitya doctrine is, again, not quite the simple assertion that the world is impermanent, but rather that the more one grasps at the world, the more it changes. Reality in itself is neither permanent nor impermanent; it cannot be categorized. But when one tries to hold on to it, change is everywhere apparent, since, like one’s own shadow, the faster one pursues it, the faster it flees. 
Hinduism

Extract: From a spiritual perspective, ego means considering oneself to be distinct from others and God due to identification with the physical body and impressions in various centres of the subtle body. In short ego is leading our life as per the thinking that our existence is limited to our 5 senses, mind, and intellect and identifying with them to various degrees.
As per the science of Spirituality, our true state of existence is identification with the Soul or God-principle within us and living our day to day life with this consciousness. As the one and same God-principle exists within all, from a spiritual perspective there is unity in all Creation.
However, depending on the level of our ego, we identify with the God-principle within us, i.e. the Soul to varying degrees. If our ego is high, we identify less with the Soul or the God-principle within us.
Taoism

Extract: In Taoist practice, when one “sheds the bones” a Taoist will finally fully wash off all the glue that holds the spirit to the bones of our stories. However, until that point of full release, a Taoist allows ego to play a bit, as it’s part of our very nature. Instead at first a Taoist learns how to live their life without that sheep dog in control of our life.

Islam

Extract: [Quran 2:54] Recall that Moses said to his people, "O my people, you have wronged your souls by worshiping the calf. You must repent to your Creator. You shall kill your egos. This is better for you in the sight of your Creator." He did redeem you. He is the Redeemer, Most Merciful.

­­­­­­­­­­_____________________________

The following gives a more collective view, it also shows a Christian and Judaist viewpoint on this topic as well. 

_____________________________


Extract: Understanding what we call ‘the ego’ will change how you see yourself and the world around you. Your mind has been programmed to believe that the ego is you, but in reality it is just an illusion that we use to help us function in our world. In a sense, the ego is what makes us feel separate from other people.

Even though we play much of our life through the lens of the ego, we are not the ego. We are sitting outside of the ego; a pure and whole individual. We are the observer. Although the ego is in no way the enemy, the ability to see the ego for what it is gives us a lot of power and enlightenment.

_____________________________


It would seem as soon as a belief system states it's absolutely right over all other beliefs, this belief has become egotistical, considering that ego is a separation from our truer being, how separated is a belief system that believes it's absolutely egotistically right over all other beliefs, it's absolute?

Let's put this in a Godly sense, how much of God is a person who categorically states their belief is absolute over all other beliefs? Considering the main consensuses of each belief states that ego can indeed separate ourselves from God, how truly of God is a person who states absolutes?

Let's put this in another way, how much of the inners self or nothingness is a persons when stating absolutes in relation to their own beliefs? Considering that absolutes within anyone's belief system is egotistical, how virtuous and exact is any absolute view in this case when they are themselves obviously showing no connection  to their truer being?

On numerous occasions I have had discussions with people following various beliefs, most people are open minded to one extent or another, others are absolute within their convictions. Even people who call themselves Buddhist, have spoken about absolutes for example, their is absolutely no God and soul, we are nothingness that is completely void of ego. As soon as you talk about absolutes, you are talking not just about ego but egotism. Is the view that absolutes are egotism? No, because again there are no true absolutes.

I should also state that I have talked to other people of Buddhism about other people who state they are Buddhist, but at the same time talk about absolutes. According to these people I've talked to, they are not true Buddhists. 

Now my view on ego is, all motion is ego, all excessive (extreme) motion is egotism. Oneness, zero point, God, nothingness, inner self and so on, which is in my mind our truer being, are motionless therefore are ego free. The closer we become our truer being, the less motion we express therefore the less of the ego we become.

As I have always said, motion is an expression of our truer being, God if you like. There is nothing wrong or right within this expression, it's how we express our truer being that defines how destructive or constructive we will be. If you wish to judge destruction as being wrong or negative, this is your will but any judgment like this is of the ego, therefore a further separation from our truer being. Is there anything wrong in this separation? No but one should be wised that the further we separate ourselves from this truer being, the more egotistical we become and the more destructive we become, the world around us at present is a good indication of this.


Ego can be a beautiful thing, egotism can be an ugly thing in accordance to it's obvious destructiveness. It's wise not to judge the Ego as you do egotism, this is obvious within it's observation.                          

Wednesday 14 September 2016

Wisdom and Philosophy


Written by Mathew Naismith

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

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

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

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

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

Wisdom and philosophy = timelessness + infinite + motionless + peace

Knowledge and intelligence = time + finite + motion + chaos

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

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

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

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

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

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


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