Showing posts with label participator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label participator. Show all posts

Monday, 25 February 2019

To Be Spiritual in Essence

Written by Mathew Naismith

"Essence is a deep word: it drives our souls and is the engine which our spirit revolves around. Essence transcends each of our stories and follows us no matter which forms we may take. To see and accept the essence of another is to have power in how you work and flow with another. To embrace your style is to never work against yourself. Essence can have other meanings, but for a human being, this definition of style is one that will take you far."

A part of our own spiritual essence is to observe, at times without participating in what we observe, and accept the essence of other people, animals and the environment as a whole. Spiritual essence is about observing the connection with other essences with the environment as a whole. How many spiritual people feel this essence where non-spiritual people don't? Being spiritual is really to do with your own spiritual essence and the connection this has with all other essences within the environment. Yes, the perception of a God also gives us this spiritual connection that all is connected even when perceived to be separate. Sorry, but the perception of God is not disdainful to me in anyway. 

A lot of spiritually aware people think we should simply observe as this is a more spiritual. To accept that everything has a connection is spiritual, this means accepting being a participator as well, for there is no observation without something to observe and visa-versa!!

How many spiritually aware people desire to separate themselves from the present participation, the present reality?  A lot of people but you need to understand that our own spiritual essence is not comfortable being this out of balance, in fact the more of the spiritual essence we become, the less we desire to feel out of balance with the rest of our environments spiritual essences.

Yes, as we become more of the spiritual essence, we desire to feel more balanced with our environment, not less balanced. However, you come to a point where you also observe, in the absence of desire, that accepting the present reality as it is, is just as spiritual if not more spiritual no matter how imbalanced it is. Once our desires (ego) no longer control us, we are free to observe and participate in all of what creation is for what it is, not what we desire it to be. This simply means any true spiritual person can exist in any environment. Many of us today are a good depiction of this.

In my early teenage years, I had a choice to either become more of an observer or become more of a participator. Even though I had to endure discomfort from a chronic injury from six rears of age, I chose to be more of a participator than an observer. The trick in this is the ability to observe your own participation but also accept simply being a participator at times. I allowed my participation to be free of my own observations thus allowing me more freedom to express myself as a participator. To be honest, even if we know it or not, a lot of us are doing just this, allowing our own participation to express itself without the influence of observation from any source.

I don't find it strange that while we are being observed by the authorities within our participation, a lot of us react differently to if we weren't being observed. Why do multinationals do as they please? Because they have a perception they are not being observed as they have no authority above them observing them. They would indeed change the way they participate when observed by a higher authority, this is why many of them stay ignorant to any other higher authority observing them!! Actually, a lot of people do this, stay ignorant to any other higher authority or consciousness observing their own participation.

Of course if you are spiritual in essence, it seems no amount of observation will change the way you participate in life. Actually, knowing you are being observed influences you to become more of the spiritual essence within all things. However, you will find when you come to a point of spiritual growth, you will accept participating while not under the influence of observation just as much as accepting being influenced by observation. It is amazing how people react when they truly believe that God, a higher authority, is observing there participation. This of course changes when the Church or sect becomes the higher authority!!     

Hard to imagine isn't it, that a person of true spiritual essence accepts participating as much as observing? This is only hard to imagine because many of us desire to be and feel a desire of being spiritual in essence only, in all honesty, desires and feelings have nothing to do with spiritual essence. A truly spiritual person will not desire to be in any one state over and above other states no matter what they feel or desire. Of course feelings and desires are of participation which is as accepted as being totally egoless!!

In a reality of imbalances, you will desire to feel balanced; this is so natural for a person spiritual in essence. Once you connect, not only with your own spiritual essence but with the spiritual essence of your entire environment, you will see the balance within the environment. It is like looking at the small picture, your own spiritual essence, as opposed to looking at the big picture, the spiritual essence within all things.

Should we accept the imbalances that are created in the absence of perceiving that we are not being observed by a higher authority? Let's be honest, why are multinationals so expressive of imbalances? They perceive they are not being observed for only in knowing we are being observed do we express more balance. How many criminals act more in a balanced way within their present environment when being observed? How many religious people, who believe in God, act differently when God is the higher authority, not the churches or sects? If you don't accept being part of this imbalance, it is most likely you are a part of bringing human reality back into balance with the rest of the environment. To bring natural balance back in human reality, we must also accept being non-accepting of being imbalanced as well, a true sense of acceptance.

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.......        

Tuesday, 13 February 2018

Like a Butterfly

Written by Mathew Naismith

What is wise to understand is that when people like me seem derogative, we are not really being derogative, only a perception of negatives and positives will judge like this. If I call the human race a virus that is devouring its host, this isn't being derogative as there is no perception of a negative, it's simply stating a fact of how humans can behave. This kind of behaviour is quite natural for the human species to express up to date, of course if the human species allowed itself to consciously evolve even further, this kind of behaviour simply wouldn't and couldn't exist, I will explain.              

What is or isn't negative or positive to the observer is completely different the participator, mainly because there are no negatives or positives perceptions when of the observer. The more of the observer we become, the less motion is expressed therefore the less of the perceptions of negatives and positives we judge/perceive. Also, the more of the observer we become, the less we feel love and light because we are love and light. Feelings are of a high degree of motion therefore participation.  

The participator judges more negatives and positives the more of the participator we become, this is probably why the expressions like toxic and negative are used so frequently these days in Westernised spirituality. You see the more of the participator we become, the more perceived negatives and positive we perceive/judge.

OK, on one end of the scale negatives are ignored and/or denounced because they are toxic to our own positive vibrations. On the other end of the scale we have materialists who ignore what they have created, for example, child and adolescent prostitution. In the middle of the scale we have people like me who are not ignorant to these things, this is simply because these motions are not critically judged as being negative as it's natural for a leech to leech/sponge off of a victim/host.

How many of the elite create and then live off of sick dying people? How many of the elite create a reality that feeds off of other people in one sense or another? Cannibalism comes to mind which was and still is a part of some people's reality around the world, it's certainly a part of the elite's reality which is then forced upon the rest of humanity.

Is the human species acting like a virus, a leach and a cannibal negative?

Is an actual leach type creature negative because it naturally feeds off of other animals? Is a virus negative because it naturally devours its host and is a cannibal negative while naturally existing within its own environment?

A spiritual person goes into a forest and immediately feels all these positive vibrations, this is while at the same time the forest is all about a dog eat dog world. Are other animals praying off of other animals, each other and plants negative, why is it then negative for the human species to act in this way?

The human species is a part of the natural environment, this is too obvious in the way the human species mimics so much of the natural environment, the difference is, the human species somehow puts itself above what it mimics. Also, a leech is a leach as a virus is a virus as a cannibal is a cannibal, they are what they are void of being like each other, however, the human species is expressive of all of these motions and more, the question is now, is the expression of all these motions, all these participations, representative of an evolving consciousness?

Yes, the observer observes that some parts of the human species is expressive of these motions of the natural environment, this is completely natural for a species to do when it puts itself above all other species and forms of existence, the point is, not everyone of the human species expresses themselves in this way.

Yes, the human species is a part of nature but it's also a part of a different natural state of existence, an existence that is of the observer rather than a participator.

The universe itself is all about participation, motion, everything it creates is of participation; this is what we call nature, a natural environment of motion. This however is not the only natural environment we are a part of; we are also a part of the observer of participation.

The observer can be of love void of having to feel love first to be of love, in actuality the feeling of love is negated through being love instead of just feeling love. The participator on the other hand has to feel love, within this motion it will never become truly of love because there is simply no observation of love, just participation of love. Can we stop acting like a leech, a virus and a cannibal if we are still in participation of these motions? Only through observation is human consciousness able to evolve, of course observation is of awareness, the more we observe, the more we become aware.

Yes, it's hard to imagine, in a reality, a universe, of a high degrees of motion, one seemingly has to express love to be of love, basically, to put love into motion. Imagine being love without having to feel love. It's hard to imagine only because we are conditioned to participation rather than observation. As there are no perceptions of negatives or positives in observation, there are no feelings of love, joy, harmony and so on, they are simply not needed to be of these motions. Imagine being of motions void of motions, simply a motionless state of being of everything void of judgment or bias.

Yes, the natural environment of motion, the universe, tricks us to think we have to put everything into motion to be of that motion, this could not be further from the truth for we are more than motion could ever express in one state of motion. Motion represents a very tiny part of who we are as a whole; only through being aware of this will human consciousness evolve. Yes, we are a part of our environment but only a tiny part, the rest is often obscured through excessive motion.

All of creation is not based on the perceptions of negatives and positives, good and bad, wrong and right, love or not love and so on, separation period, perceptions are simply created and perceived, they are not the bases of all of creation.

Yes, man could have been a butterfly, he simply chose differently........

Saturday, 5 November 2016

Being Your True Being

Written by Mathew Naismith

I wrote the following to try to help other people understand why they feel so miserable at times. We seem to have become aware that the present environment isn't who we are, in actuality, our present environment reflects anything other than who we truly are. The reason for this lies in what created this reality in the first place, lies, deception and manipulation/backstabbing.

We cannot truly be what lies have created in the first place, of course lies create deception and manipulation, basically, a true depiction of an illusion. We of course can't be an illusion but many of us today are very much apart of this illusion, otherwise the world would be a very different place to what it is today. Many of us have become aware of this illusion and beckon to become expressive of our truer being again.

For starters, we have been made to believe that time and space is all we are, it's a part of who we are but it's not all of what we are, in actuality, time and space is but a tiny portion of our whole being. Within the limitations of time and space, we have created lies upon lies upon lies. It's like a snowball rolling down a snowy hill, it accumulates more of what has initially created it. The further the snowball goes on, the larger the snowball becomes. Our present reality was created from lies, this has accumulated even more of the same as it's allowed to continue. The lies, deception and manipulation isn't lessening, it's growing, however, once you become an observer instead of a participator of the snowball effect, it becomes apparent to the observer it's not of the snowball, it's but an observer of the snowball.

Once you start to become the observer rather than a participator, you become more aware of your truer being, this is quite a natural phenomena to occur when a participant  becomes an observer. Some people are having a hard time of this only because they are between being an observer and a participator, no transition period is easy to circumnavigate when in this transition period. It's like circumnavigating the globe void of instrumentation or mapping of any kind, it would be daunting to say the least to do this.

When you have no mapping or instrumentation to guide you from a participator to an observer, basically meaning no sound and true guidance, it's obvious that such a voyage will we harrowing at times. Try to remember that there is a huge difference between a participator and an observer. A participator is usually apart of the lies and deception, where's the observer is no longer of this kind of reality being that the observer is our truer being, not the participator.                   

I hope the following puts a better perspective on this.


I've become a grumpy old man

The reason lies within my unacceptance

An unacceptance of deceit, lies and backstabbing

Life is too short and precious I feel

I no longer choose to live and accept this kind of environment

For this, I have become a grumpy old man to others

And so be it

Better this than the alternative

An alternative too accepted by too many in my mind

I am not this kind of environment

I am something quite different

A difference that is known to some to be grumpy

And again so be it as the alternative isn't who I truly am  

I will never go back this kind of environment

Life is too precious to do so

In actuality

My own true being is precious

More precious than this kind of environment is by far

Indeed, our environment dictates who we are

We are our environment

But our environment isn't necessarily who we are

Wisdom learnt through life teaches us this

It's obvious

Once you become grumpy towards this kind of environment

You then realise you are indeed apart of a different environment

An environment a lot more constructive towards being your true being

An environment of deceit, lies and backstabbing isn't who anyone is

This isn't our truer being

This however only becomes apparent when you extricate yourself

An extrication from a created environment to your true environment

An environment conductive to being your true being


~Mathew G~ 

Monday, 29 August 2016

It's an Amazing World/Existence

Written By Mathew Naismith

Looking upon my physical transformation at 52 years of age, all I can feel is total amazement, in actuality, I look upon my whole body and mind and I am totally amazed at my own transition as a whole. You might think I am over stating this but it's one huge WOW factor. My own transition in a reality based on time, is utterly amazing, this is because I am aware that most realities don't consist of experiences of massive transitions like this.

You look upon the Earth and the universe itself, it's amazing how the natural environment goes from one transitional stage to another, the cycles that everything goes through within a universe based on time, is, yes, amazing to say the least. In stating this, human consciousness, after how many centuries, still has very little idea how amazing our environment based on time is. This comprehension of course takes one to realise who they truly are as a whole. OK, time might be an illusion but this doesn't take away how amazing  a reality based on time is, the natural environment that time has created is beyond words.

Have I gone totally loony? It would seem so to a lot of people in even suggesting an assumed illusion is amazing beyond words, it's as if my ego controls me to stay within the illusion created by the ego!!

Firstly, only a controlling ego judges what is and isn't an illusion, a controlling ego doesn't want anything controlling it especially an assumed illusion. Even if the ego created the illusion, it doesn't want to be controlled by this illusion so it creates states of  non-illusion as opposed to states of illusion such a time itself. However, a non-controlling ego reacts differently, this kind of ego is not fearful of being controlled by an illusion or a non-illusion, this kind of ego will naturally react to life, as a whole, as amazing.

We might think what is so amazing about human consciousness being so chaotic and destructive, especially unto itself?

It's amazing that such a self-proclaimed intelligent life form has the belief it's intelligent in accordance with it's technological advancements. It's also amazing that such a self-proclaimed intelligent form believes it can express high intelligence void of wisdom. Take the yin out of the yang, what is naturally created? Destruction, you can't use high levels of technology void of wisdom, in actuality, the use of high technology has to be balanced out by wisdom to avoid self-destruction. It's amazing that such an intelligent form is trying to use high levels of technology void of wisdom and still think it's intelligent!!

Has human consciousness learnt anything from centuries of destruction?

It's utterly amazing that human consciousness has learnt little if anything from it's own past, how could a remotely intelligent form, that has all this experience before it, can still be as it was centuries gone by? It is obvious that no truly intelligent form tries it's hardest not to evolve but that is exactly what human consciousness has accomplished. In the whole scheme of existence, very few remotely intelligent consciousness has accomplished this, this within itself is amazing. Using high levels of technology void of wisdom isn't evolving, our intelligence in relation to technology has risen but our wisdom has obviously fallen. This has occurred before in Earths history when a conscious forms used high technology void of wisdom.

At present,  it seems that human consciousness is being influenced by external consciousness's that impel power, control and dominance. Of course if a more aware and powerful consciousness than human consciousness impels such actions, these actions must be the way to go. Human consciousness is being conditioned to believe there must be a superpower, or more precisely, a master race that is meant to dominate all other races. How often is this exact belief been expressed throughout human or Earths history? It's utterly amazing that a remotely intelligent form can think like this.

The question is now, is there a more dominant consciousness within the universe?

To me, Gaia is consciousness but this kind of consciousness is not actually dominant, it is however about cycles that allow everything within Gaia to evolve. There are however conscious forms that are dominant within the universe, human consciousness certainly hasn't got this on it's own, it would be a bit naive to think this in my mind.

The difference between human consciousness and these other forms of dominating consciousness's, is that these other dominating forms have used wisdom in conjunction with intelligence. It's wise to realise that intelligence doesn't mean intelligence is wisdom.

You could say that wisdom is yin and intelligence is yang, however, as yin and yang, each displays the same attributes as the other. What human consciousness seems to have tried to do, is extract wisdom (yin) from intelligence (yang), of course as of before in Earths history, extracting the yin from the yang or the yang from the yin, naturally and automatically causes a consciousness to destroy itself and it's environment. 

We might then think that this more intelligent dominating external consciousness, from human consciousness, hasn't destroyed itself. Once any consciousness destroys other consciousness's through dominance, it will eventually inadvertently destroy (extract) it's own balance within existence as a whole. It all comes down to dominance and non-dominance, control and non-control, yin and yang. Once one tries to dominate to extract (destroy) the other, all this creates is destruction of the dominant.

What is also amazing is that these deemed negatives, bad, evils, basically in all, pain, when gathered up as a whole, is but a grain of sand on a beach. In all of existence as a whole, pain has the relevance of a grain of sand on a beach, only an imbalanced consciousness believes it to be otherwise.

I came across an insightful poem just recently, the poem is in relation to loving/appreciating the present via the following link.                     

My Reply
Indeed Nicoleta, appreciate the present, this is inline to observing or participating. The participator participates on the past and future where's the observer is observant of the present only. The past and future are always observed as being of the present negating a past and future, strangely enough, the participator negates the present!!

It's interesting to realise that the observer is of timelessness and the participator is of time which gives us a perception of a past and future. It's good to be a participator (time) but utilised without the balance of the observer (timelessness), the participator will always express destruction. Indeed, a worthwhile poem.

The point is to the grain of sand is, the participator will only perceive what they participate in, the participator will primarily perceive the grain of sand or primarily perceive any other grain of sand but the grain of sand representing pain. The observer however will perceive the whole truth in that the observer will perceive all grains of sand void of bias/judgment.

I will put this in another way. I've had an interesting life to say the least, only once in my life can I remember not being in physical pain, this was for a brief part of one day. Of course this pain being created from a chronic injury from the age of six years old, has caused a lot of mental pain as well. The point is, a lot of people trying to avoid the negatives/pain in life, would not have been able to utilise this pain to benefit others who are far more disabled as I have done. Also, would a person who perceives pain as just being negative, desist in taking pain killers like people like myself? I should also state that healing is likened to taking pain killers, however, when healing is exercised in a balanced way, healing most often helps us to become more balanced from an imbalanced state.

Even though pain in the whole of existence is but a grain of sand on a beach, doesn't make this grain of sand irrelevant to the beach itself. Basically, pain helps give our truer self balance, it's a necessity as yang is to yin and yin is to yang, however, the participator within this reality has either primarily perceived this grain of sand of pain or tries to ignore this grain of sand of pain, either way of perceiving creates an imbalance therefore destruction.

I know a lot of Western minded people think I have no idea what I am talking about but I can't emphasise enough on learning to become an observer, especially at present. The observer will give us back balance from an obvious imbalanced state of existence, this existence is of course primarily dominated by being a participator. Continuing to primarily participate to either perceive the pain or anything but the pain, will only create more destruction as any imbalance within a consciousness naturally does. I'm not stating this from some kind of human ideology, this is coming through me, and yes, I am supposed to share what is coming through me but of course not everything that comes through me. It is difficult to know what I am supposed to share or not at times, learning to be an observer is one of the things I need to share, this is made very clear. 

Saturday, 21 May 2016

Finite Existence, A Motion Picture

Written by Mathew Naismith

It would seem I've always perceived life, finite existence, likened to a panoramic view with no separation, meaning that there are no segments or separate lives lived, it's one life. As I have written in posts a few years ago now, I don't perceive, for example, reincarnation as depicting separate lives lived, it's more likened to one life lived separated by intermissions or separate scenes like in a lengthy motion picture. I look at all my finite existence as a motion picture, each frame and scene make up this motion picture we call life, we can either perceive this motion picture as a picture in motion separated by scenes, or, observe this motion picture as a motionless panoramic photo/picture.

Finite = motion picture + separatism + motion + participator + time

Infinite = panoramic photo + collective + motionless + observer + timelessness  

Finite existence can give the view or perception of separate lives, you could say this is an illusion as finite existence can delude us to perceive in a separatist way. The question is, is finite existence truly and really about separatism? It's a paradox because the answer is yes and no. Yes, when we perceive through infinite perceptions and no, not when we are perceiving through a finite perception.

Finite existence; refers to an existence of a participator rather than an observer, of course to participate, we need motion or a means to create motion, this is of course is where time comes into it as time is all about motion. To create motion however, you need to first separate this picture into segments or frames, like a movie motion picture, to give it motion, time does this very well.   

Infinite existence; refers to an existence of an observer, the observer observing the whole of life as one frame or as a motionless panoramic photo. It's quite understandable why the observer is more aware and wiser than a participator.              

However, as many people like me have done, you can exist by a finite and infinite existence, this allows one to experience finite existence while at times observing these experiences. What I don't do is separate finite existence from infinite existence, any kind of separation denotes predominant finite perceptions within the act of separating one from the other. This means no matter how traumatising an experience is within finite existences, it's just as accepted, and most importantly, appreciated as an infinite existence experience. You of course can only be appreciative of life traumas when being the observer through an infinite existence, perceiving predominately through finite perceptions will only enhance traumas. 

How does one appreciate traumatising times in one's life?

You don't at the time of the trauma, this act in being unappreciative is also appreciated but only when you observe the whole life, not one segment of frame of life and this is the point. The more we separate life into individual segments, the more dramatic our lives become, how dramatic is a movie motion picture compared to a panoramic photo? Even if the panoramic photo was of a traumatising time, once you put this still picture into motion, it makes the scene a lot more dramatic, our lives in a finite reality are very much like this.

Take a look at the difference between the perceptions of ISIS and consumerist materialism or one religion to another for example, each difference within these group of people denote a different frame or scene within a motion picture. Now observe these differences as one whole picture as if you are watching all of a motion picture all at once as one motionless picture, what you are observing becomes automatically less dramatic.

Do people like myself allow drama and trauma to be a part of their lives?

Absolutely, for to do otherwise would to be predominantly of finite existence through the simple expression of separating one from the other.

Does this mean we should just accept the dramas and traumas in our lives?

It's really up to the individual, however, if you no longer want to be a participator within a finite reality, become the observer by not separating life, as a whole, into different segments. This means stop separating one part of life, no matter how traumatising it is, from other parts of your life, observe your whole existence as one life lived.

As of always, balance is the key, don't try to push something away by pulling something in and expect a more balanced peaceful existence, this just isn't going to occur as human history quite plainly shows us. Any retaliation will create an opposing retaliation, pulling something in to push something out denotes a participator, instead, also become an observer which depicts an infinite existence that will balance out the finite existence. Yes. at times it's a fine balance, at times balancing one extreme with another but note, every extreme will create more drama. Balancing out life with one extreme with another extreme denotes a predominant finite existence. The less of the extreme we express, the more of the infinite we become.

Finite or infinite existence on it's own isn't balance, finite existence is all about drama and trauma where's infinite existence is all about a passive existence, one being seemingly separate to the other. I do find it strange that people who are trying to be of infinite existence, will at times totally separate themselves from finite existence, this action is of course primarily of finite existence, any separation denotes a finite existence.              

A true infinite existence takes one to balance out finite and infinite existences, it's not about separating one from the other. We are so used to perceiving in a motion picture way, we can only perceive by separating one from the other. Each scene is separate to us in finite existences where in infinite existences they are one of the same with no separation from fame to frame, scene to scene as in a motion picture. A true infinite existence is liked to a motionless panoramic picture showing all of what is in one go, this might sound daunting but it's quite the opposite, it's very reassuring and comforting. In effect, finite existence is only this motionless panoramic picture of the infinite put into motion like a motion picture.....  

Sunday, 20 March 2016

Does It Really Matter?

Written by Mathew Naismith

Everything of time is supposed to be an illusion because we often delude ourselves in thinking this is all we are, in all, everything of motion, therefore time,  is an illusion, this is because as soon as we lose the ability to observe, we become primarily a participator but does this really matter?

For it to matter is of motion, to label what is or isn't an illusion is also motion, therefore, as soon as we label what is what, we become a part of what we have perceived as being an  illusion. What we are doing is perceiving an illusion while within an illusion, how credible is this perception going to be in the first place?

A true observer will not label or separate one thing from the other, this is primarily due to such observers not actually observing illusions. What they observe is the bigger picture when all we see mostly is the smaller picture.

Observer = big picture + timelessness + non-perceptional + oneness + no illusions or non- illusions

Participator =  small picture + time + perceptional + separatism + illusions and non-illusions

The big and small picture refers to having no perceptions to having perceptions, the big picture is not about having perceptions, it's about observing perception. The observer will only observe the big picture which denotes an existence void of perceptions. If such an observer was to see the smaller picture, at this point the observer is no longer an observer but a participator.

Does it matter being a participator? If it does, you are no closer to be an observer purely because you are still being expressive of a participator by expressing perceptions or judgments. As soon as we have a perception of what is or isn't an illusion, we are primarily a participator, however, would not an observer who is not worried about participating, therefore perceiving what is what, express themselves in this way? To an observer, it doesn't matter as long as we are also aware of the big picture while participating in the small picture. It basically all comes down to being aware.

To a participator who is also observing, there is seemingly a separation between illusions and non-illusions, time and timeliness, any kind of participation denotes separation, basically, time, therefore perceptions, are of separatism. As soon as we have motion (time), we have perceptions which we call illusions. The thing to remember here, the observer is only observing the big picture void of separatist perceptions and is of course of timelessness. Within this timelessness, when did time become apparent when within this timelessness there is no starting or ending point of origin? The point is, time has always existed within timelessness therefore so have the illusions and delusions, they are indeed real, however, we can, as a participators, become deluded in thinking this is all we are.

"The yin is a part of the yang as illusions are apart of non-illusions, it's wise not to separate the yin from the yang for all this will do is create more illusion than non-illusions thus unbalancing existence".  

Just thought I would mention this. A lot of us have pulled away from being religious or have disdain for religions, it's wise to remember, religions have always had perceptions of there being more to us than we often perceived, in my mind, we owe a lot of our present development to religions.