Tuesday, 21 August 2018
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.......
Monday, 6 August 2018
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.
Thursday, 5 October 2017
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
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, 1 November 2016
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, 30 July 2015
Written by Mathew Naismith
The void: I had an interesting conversation with another person who has studied the Bhagavad gita and the bible, it would seem a lot of what I write, in one sense or another, relates to these ancient writings even though these writings seem so different to each other. What one should remember here, the bible is of symbolism, once you look beyond these symbols, you begin to become aware of the similarities between the bible and the Bhagavad gita even though the Bhagavad gita is also directly expressionistic of science analysis and reasoning.
One of the major similarities is what some people call God’s consciousness, basically a consciousness that is motionless, to me people like Jesus and Buddha, and even Confucius, expressed a great deal of this God’s consciousness, a connection with a consciousness far beyond normal human comprehension. I also see a lot of spiritually aware people who express love, harmony and understanding are also in one way or another expressive of this God’s consciousness.
The Bhagavad gita and the bible also don’t mention voids and illusions as such, yes we are deluding ourselves if we don’t think we are apart of this God’s consciousness, but they don’t say we are living in an illusion that isn’t real period. Taoism also doesn’t concur to voids and illusions denoting that any consciousness is unreal. Taoism is about motion and motionlessness, meaning that Taoism is about this God’s consciousness but also about yin and yang. Yin and yang are all about being in motion so in Taoism motion is real and not an illusion as such. Basically illusions refer to all motions being unreal, an illusion.
God’s consciousness = void + motionless + egoless + oneness
Human consciousness = occupied + motion + ego + yin and yang
Now I mentioned void in relation to this God’s consciousness only because I understand this God’s consciousness is void of motion, in other words it’s not occupied with expressing motions. Some people refer to this void as being void (empty) of consciousness period, this is supposed to be our true state. I’m not sure how a void is supposed to exist in this way without a consciousness being aware of it’s existence in the first place!!........But in saying this, a void in my mind exists.
It’s all to do with how this void exists, not if it exists or not, or that anything else not of this void is an illusion (unreal). A consciousness void of any motion what so ever would seem to us as a complete void of nothingness, void of any consciousness what so ever, this is all due to our conditioning. We are conditioned to think and feel through motions, anything not of this motion is going to seem to us as a complete void, a nothingness. We are trying to perceive from a point of motion to a point of no motion, it’s quite understandable we are going to see this motionlessness, this God’s consciousness, as nothingness, a complete void. So anything other than this void is going to be judged as an illusion by some people.
Perceiving beyond motion: Now observe yourself perceiving from a point of being motionless. From a point of this God’s consciousness, all you become aware of is consciousness expressing itself in various ways through motion, this doesn’t now make being motionless an illusion just because it’s motionless. Nothing is a true illusion, just like a void needs to exist, you need consciousness to judge what is and isn’t an illusion, illusions can only exist through consciousness though it’s judgment. This is why God’s consciousness doesn’t judge as opposed to observe, there is no motion in this God’s consciousness to be expressive of consciousness. This however doesn’t make observing various forms of consciousness expressing itself an illusion, even though such consciousness’s are unaware of their own God’s consciousness. This would be like saying someone I can’t see behind me must be an illusion because I am unaware of them, being unaware doesn’t denote an illusion, it’s just simply being unaware.
Let’s look at this in this way. In my last post I related a creek bed, with water running over pebbles and into rocks, to our reality. This was stating that this reality is all about motions and different types of motions depending on the types of egos being expressed. Now put yourself in a reality (a universe) of far less motion, just like we are to this reality, you are conditioned to that reality, would such consciousness’s think and perceive the way we do? They couldn’t, because each reality has it’s own unique cycles of motions that influence the consciousness’s that exist within these cycles, these motions influence how aware these consciousness’s are going to be, this doesn’t make any other consciousness existing in a different reality an illusion.
Being of motion and motionless: Some people think we are only this God’s consciousness, this one consciousness and not all these separate consciousness’s expressing various forms of motions, in other words motion is again an illusion, it’s not real.
Being of a consciousness of motion or motionless, it’s still consciousness, it’s still one consciousness expressing itself in various ways because this consciousness is of motion and motionlessness, to me, only a controlling ego would judged otherwise. Of course the ego wants to always be something more grandiose than what it is, that’s quite understandable and natural within the influences we exist under, after all, it’s a reality occupied with motion which can keep us unaware of our motionless self, or, preoccupied with our motionless self. As always, balance is the key.
If we were conditioned to realities with less motion, we would think and react completely different to what we do within realities like this one, it would be impossible to react any different to the influences of motions within a reality unless we were ourselves more aware. This is due to each reality (universe) having it’s own influences on consciousness. The reason why not all consciousness’s react the same within a particular universe, is due to becoming aware beyond these influences of motion of cycles. Each galaxy and solar system has it’s own influences as well.
Less motion = more awareness, the less of motion we are within ourselves, the less these cycles of motion will influence us, take a person who meditates a lot for example, they express less motion therefore become more aware. Modern day science expresses a lot of motion, however, the Bhagavad gita is different within it’s science understandings mainly because it expresses less motion. It’s as much about the awareness than it is the motion of this awareness. In other words the teachings of the Bhagavad gita shows an awareness of the implication of expressing such awareness before turning this awareness into motion, actually, the bible does the same, the ten commandments is a good example of this.
Consciousness works the same no matter what consciousness it is, the less it’s occupied in expressing this consciousness, the more aware it becomes due to being less preoccupied with the motion of this consciousness. We however exist in a reality of motion, all we need to do in my mind is find balance within this reality but at the same time being aware that the more of motion we are expressive of, the less aware we become. Once we find this balance, our existence will change quite dramatically I feel.
Thursday, 2 July 2015
Written by Mathew Naismith
Firstly, please don’t get motionless mixed up with emotionless, motionless is to do with no or little movement as emotionless has to do with no or little feelings. This post is about a motionless expression which automatically brings on the feeling of love within oneself. I should also point out, the following is only my perception on this, this has nothing to do with absolute truth.
The one thing about spiritual awareness that is quite noticeable to me, is that spiritual awareness naturally and automatically brings on the feeling of love and oneness, we could quite easily say love is brought about by the feeling of oneness, a togetherness of the whole self. This isn’t exactly true, what I feel brings on this feeling of love is ourselves expressing less motion, the more we become aware, the less we think and the more we feel.
Feelings are not about motion, we don’t have to express feelings to become aware of them, they have naturally always been there. The thinking process is different, as soon as we think, we have motion. If you look around you right now, how many things are created through motion that didn’t take any thought process at all? Everything around us has taken a thought process to create, this means everything around you is about motion, a conscious thought instead of a conscious feeling. Yes, feelings can be put into thought therefore motion but these feelings don’t have to be put into motion to exist, they have always existed, this of course means love, as opposed to lust and desire, have always existed.
We could say here that a rock didn’t take thought to exist but it did, it took motion to create rocks through the big bang, so what I am saying here is the big bang came from a thought process way beyond our human perceptions. Many people of course call this kind of consciousness God. To me, everything created takes some kind of conscious thought process to exist, it’s all about motion but what about motionless, how much do we know about this state of consciousness?
Some people actually say this motionless consciousness isn’t consciousness at all, it’s nothingness because it has no motion. Just because this consciousness has no motion doesn’t mean it isn’t an expression of a consciousness. Like I said, to be aware of feelings you don’t have to express them through motion because they already exist, if feelings have always existed so has consciousness.
So how do we know feelings, therefore love, have always existed?
While becoming spiritually aware you can think less, this means you are less expressive of motion, however, you actually begin to feel more while thinking less unless we put these feelings into motion, into action. To express any feelings is to create motion through the processes of thought, however, the less you express these feelings within motions, the more you understand how these feelings (love) have always existed. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express what we feel, it just means the less expressive you are, the more aware you become.
This brings us back to the observer, feelings are more to do with an observer than thought processes, once we start thinking as an observer, we loose our unbiased observations. We can still, as an unbiased observer, observe feelings put into motion but it’s advisable we don’t become too involved with these motions that are being expressed. A good psychologist/ psychiatrist follow the same rules.
Now this isn’t easy for humans to do, this is because humans are conditioned to express motion, actually they know little about any other way to exist. You can now imagine a reality that is conditioned to do otherwise, a reality conditioned to be as expressive as little as possible, this doesn’t mean they don’t feel, actually feelings within a reality like this are more about love, this is due to being aware of existing without having to be as expressive of these feelings (love).
We might ask how could we have more feelings of love without expressing such feelings?
The less you express love through thought, therefore motion, the more love you feel, this is inline with becoming spiritually aware, don’t most of us feel more love while becoming aware while thinking less? This is due to motion denoting chaos, the more people who express motion, the more chaos you are obviously going to create, however, imagine everyone becoming less about motion and thought and more about motionless and feelings. Take the motion out of thought, what would we create? You certainly wouldn’t create chaos and it’s this chaos that takes the love out of our lives.
You don’t have to be expressive of love to feel love, it is truly a natural occurrence without us trying to create this love through motion. Now the problem we cause ourselves through expressing love, is everyone has a different idea in how to express this love, a lot of love is expressed as lust and desire, this is wholly due to thinking processes. No one person has the same thinking process, this is like no one has the same exact DNA, therefore we have various expressions of love within one reality. Basically what I am saying is it’s these various and numerous expressions that creates a chaotic reality but not all realities exist like this, realities conditioned to less motional expressions are less chaotic and more about a true sense of love.
I think it’s also important to be aware of the lust for love instead of the love of love, the lust for love is all about motional thought where’s the love of love is motionless thought, or should be, this again doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express our love as such. We will feel love and so will others around us without having to express love through motion, or as much motion. In my mind, more of us need to learn to become aware that you can’t create love, the true feelings of love are motionless therefore still, peaceful and tranquil.