Showing posts with label pure consciousness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pure consciousness. Show all posts

Monday, 7 September 2015

There is No True Light or Awareness

Written by Mathew Naismith

Light and Darkness: Yes, this sounds totally contradictory in regards to my last post about there is only light and awareness. Van Johnson explained that there was only light and awareness, this however is only defined in how aware a consciousness is after the demise of the human vessel/body, the more unaware a consciousness is, the more of the dark they will be of and of course the more destructive a consciousness will become. How much darkness can one actually see when within light itself?  Zero/none, this is due to the awareness or enlightenment of a consciousness to light.

I would say that Van Johnson was actually in the light itself to state what he did, "There is only light and awareness", it's certainly not a bad place to be after our demise and yes, a consciousness can indeed end up in a very dark place after the demise of the human vessel, this all depends on how unaware or aware a consciousness is.

The light a consciousness experiences, is determined in how aware a consciousness is, in other words the quality of light depends on how aware a consciousness is. The less aware a consciousness is, either individually or collectively, the more of the darkness they will experience and see, this kind of darkness will of course naturally create a chaotic destructive reality, a darkened reality. What are we experiencing on a collective scale?  It's certainly not an enlightened reality, a reality of awareness for only through awareness can we see light.

Yes, experiencing light or darkness depends on the reality we are perceiving through,  what is this light and darkness then that creates realities of light and dark? Pure and simple motion, if we are perceiving, we are creating a motion as opposed to not creating motion.  Van Johnson could have been in a motion of pure darkness, he would then stated there is only darkness and unawareness, I have had this as well from people who have passed on. Our perceptions are wholly due to the reality we are presently experiencing, if we are experiencing a darkened unaware reality, that is what we will only see.  If we are only experiencing a lightened aware reality, that is what we will also only see.

We are presently living in a reality of light and dark on a collective scale,  the extremes of light and darkness within this collective reality are huge and we wonder why we have different perceptions and ideas/ideologies!!  Why are some people constructive and others totally destructive?  It's all to do with the light and darkness within this reality. It's actually quite an unusual reality, it's not often you get extremes of light and dark existing in the same collective reality, and of course, light and darkness denotes awareness and an unawareness. No truly aware consciousness could be destructive towards another consciousness, for only in ignorance can a consciousness be destructive. On a collective scale, this doesn't say much about us collectively, don't lose heart on this though, any reality with two opposing extremes of light and darkness are going to react in this way, this is due to a never ending action reaction between extremes, a continuous motion. Why are so many spiritually aware people today are about being motionless through practices like mediating, praying and chanting?  It's basically to do with lessening the motions within the reality.

Pure Consciousness: There is however another reality void of any perceptions of light and darkness, some people call this God's consciousness, others call this consciousness pure consciousness or even pure wisdom, what ever you call it it's a consciousness of motionlessness. To perceive light and darkness you need some kind of motion, this God's consciousness isn't about perceiving, it's about just being void of any expressive motions.

I wrote something recently in reply to another person in relation to my last post about there is only light and awareness. They explained the existence of light and darkens through the analysis of the interactions of matter and energy, the following was my analysis.

I look at all energy being of consciousness, an unaware consciousness perceives darkness more where an aware consciousness perceives light more.

The presence of matter is a sign that a consciousness is unaware, this just shows you how unaware we are and why we create realities of darkness/destruction instead of realities of light. The more this matter is in motion, the more destruction we will cause, it's all a natural process.    

I know I have been going on about motions recently but I think it's important, especially at present, to beware of what motions actually create.  You see, a consciousness that is highly expressive of motion, is only of this motion because it's unaware, a more aware a consciousness becomes, the less a consciousness will express or need to express motions.  At present on a collective scale, we are highly expressive of motions, what I am saying is this is purely due to our unawareness, this unawareness is of course going to create a darker reality, this stands to reason.

However, a reality created with less motions is going to be less destructive. I think this is why so many people are getting into meditating these days, it's about lessoning our own motions, and yes,  quietening the mind has a lot to do with lessoning our own motions.

Within this pure consciousness (God's consciousness) , there is no motion therefore there is no light or dark, yes, we perceive there is and yes we can indeed experience that this motionless consciousness is of light but only because we perceive it to be so. This pure consciousness of wisdom isn't about perceptions, if it was, it too would be like this reality, a reality of extreme light and darkness but it's not. This is wholly due to this pure consciousness not being just of awareness but pure wisdom, it basically goes beyond the perceptions of light and darkness.

This doesn't actually mean light and awareness don't exist, it just means light and awareness don't exist within pure consciousness, this means light and darkness can only exist in realities of motion. In actuality, light and darkness do exist but not in all realities. Van Johnson explained about a particular reality, the reality he was presently experiencing, this didn't mean that no other reality exists, it just means the reality we are presently experiencing will at times seem like the only reality in existence.         

Thursday, 14 November 2013

Something about Pure Consciousness, Itself

Written by Mathew Naismith

I thought I would share another private exchange I had with another bloke, with his permission of course,  concerning oneness being the big “I”, this of course means we are little”I’s” of the big “I”. We also relate the big ‘”I “to being consciousness itself or pure consciousness as well. It’s quite an interesting exchange which brings more to light to what my last post titled Spatiality-What’s What was about.   

You might also like to visit James’s blog as well as it does put a slightly different emphasis on what I’m about mainly because I’m a little less educated than James obviously.

G’day James
 Oneness being an “I” & as soon as we are aware of ourselves is expressional of the ego is just a thought I had however if you would like to fill me in more I would be so pleased to hear from you.


Hi Mathew,
Nice to hear from you.  It's sundown on the California coast here and I'm about to unplug from the net for the day.  I'll share some thoughts on your interesting Noetic post soon and you can let me know your thoughts.


Hi Mathew,
Here are a few thoughts which I've laid along side yours.

"In our individual human form we make many references to the ego “I”, what is oneness, is it not also an individual therefore of the ego “I” ?

I'm thinking it would be a Transcendent I, that qualifier lifting it above the mundane sense of identity...

"It was said to me, “any reference to just being an “I” is of the ego..." I am an ego is not equal to I am the Transcendent I.

"... there is only one oneness which would have to be an “I” so this is inferring that oneness is also of the ego."

Some esoteric literature distinguishes these by capitalization, i.e. by using "self" and "Self" and by using "ego" and "Ego."   In the ageless wisdom, then, all little egos or I's or selves are relatively illusory  extensions of the great Self or Identity which is Unity.  Our sense of I or identity is derived from, borrowed so to speak, from the One Identity, and is a reflected or vastly stepped down version of the spiritual Self.  "As above, so below" (but the below is the distant and limited echo of the "above.")
"So many people these days make reference to either feeling at one or being at one (oneness), seen as we only have one oneness this oneness must be an “I” which is saying these people are being egotistical is it not or is it"
My point above is to suggest that it would be a mistake to equate the Transcendent Self with the little ego by using a single term for both, and most especially since a term like "egotistical" carries the wrong baggage.  
"I think the ego goes beyond human perception; would it be, as soon as we are aware of ourselves being at one or not we are of the ego? The very act of awareness seems to relate to the ego"

I think it would be more correct to say that moving toward higher awareness leads to the transcendence of ego and the discovery that we are not the limited, isolated and embodied self we thought, but vastly more than that.

"...but I was a vastness somehow, that in no way contradicted or conflicted with my limited individuality... I was both my individual self and in some greater way,
'I' was also everything."    The Sound of Light, Irina Starr

Best Thoughts,

@ James
This is well explained & quite legible James, thank you.

All I am doing is going by my own experiences. The big “I” isn’t of egotism but it still of the ego as soon as the big “I” became aware of itself I feel. As soon as it became aware of itself smaller “I’s” appeared so that the big “I” could experience itself in-depth.

I do have the understanding that the Big ”I” isn’t of time so everything has always existed including the ego & egotism however this doesn’t mean we have always physically existed because we are of time which has a start & end point but everything we are experiencing  has always existed in pure conscious form. Egotism & everything else we are experiencing has always existed otherwise it wouldn’t exist for us to express I believe but the big ”I” didn’t know of this until it expressed itself through us. I believe it didn’t know of its own existence until time was used to help it become aware of itself even though it always existed. I’m not saying here that the Big “I” as opposed to us little ‘I’s” is egotistical it’s just nothing can exist without it having always existed, egotism has always existed within the depth of the big ”I” as has everything.

It’s a strange concept but when I go into certain conscious states I feel what I have explained here is true however I am aware that the human psyche can play tricks on us.

Best wishes,


but everything we are experiencing  has always existed in pure conscious form.
That rings right. 

Egotism & everything else we are experiencing has always existed otherwise it wouldn’t exist for us to express

I'm thinking the "everything," including "egotism," "existed in pure conscious form" (or formlessness), but that this archetype or essence or existing potentiality was just that, and as such, was not actually the "formal" egotism we experience.    Spirit or divinity lives in timelessness and is absolute.  Forms arise in time and are relative.

I also think that things like egotism or selfishness, in the absolute sense, serve a divine purpose, are part of freedom, and are a natural part of the divine play.  Yet, in the relativistic sense, they become--as we cling to them--wrong, bad, evil, or whatever word we like.  It is the evolutionary, the relative, out of which good and evil, right and wrong arise.  For a primitive man, who has little sense of ego, of identity, egotism is good and his divinely ordained future.  For most of us however, no so much.

Best Thoughts,

Excellent stuff indeed. I was also thinking that the ego isn’t what we would perceive the ego to be in pure consciousness, the ego has no form or meaning as pure consciousness, nothing does. Time therefore beings are what give it form & meaning which of course a lot of people couldn’t possibly comprehend because of set ideologies sadly enough. I feel the ego is given form using time which of course also has always existed. Time doesn’t separate, as we would presume, but identifies portions of consciousness & creates them in individual form thus giving ego form & meaning & of course this also goes with all human traits/emotions even love which is also of the ego.  The funny thing is we are pure conscious no matter what portion of consciousness we are playing out.

Yes, it’s all has a divine purpose within the game we play however being beings with attachments we turn these traits into something sinister or encouraging  & the more extreme the attachments are the more sinister or encouraging these traits are going to be I believe. No extremism in my mind is a good thing. The writings on the wall but very few people can see it.

You inspired me to write a post for my blog earlier on today which didn’t go down well at all when I posted it unlike my previous post which I thought was in line with what I wrote today, it just went a little further. It does however debunk a lot of ideologies & views out there at present within the spiritual community.

All my blessings,

 If you are interested here is the link to the said post:

I read the post in your link.  Below are some pieces on my blog where I address many of the same issues that you were grapping with in your post.

Best Thoughts,

Haha, we do write about the same thing but in a slightly different way, I'm not as educated obviously so I will explain what you have written here in a simpler manner. I couldn't agree more in what you have written here, good one indeed, great blog period. 

Do you mind James if I blog what we have discussed in our emails to each other, I love to share as it just might get the subconscious motivated in the people who read this stuff. We are indeed about acceptance & concord with our environment it would seem however to get people thinking outside the square one must step on some toes to get them thinking about their discord & non-acceptance as it does affect us all.  

Av a good one,


Sure, feel free to share our exchanges...

We are indeed about acceptance & concord
with our environment it would seem however to get people thinking outside
the square one must step on some toes to get them thinking about their
discord & non-acceptance as it does affect us all.  

R. W. Emerson agrees with you: 
“People wish to be settled; only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them.”