Monday, 16 July 2018
"Everything in the universe is within you.
Ask all from yourself."
Written by Mathew Naismith
Organism: A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.
When talking about the organism as a whole, I am making reference to the whole of existence. The whole of existence includes both ego created existences (participation/motion) and an existence not of the ego (observation/motionless. There is no perception of separation of this singular organism as a whole.
The independence of this organism as a whole is independent of the perceptions of separation of this whole organism. While of the ego and by the ego, the whole organism is perceived to be of separate individualistic entities or organisms, however, while not of the ego and by the ego, all is observed as one organism. There is no perception here, just clear observation through the absence of bias. You see, the ego existence, therefore participation, creates biases simply by separating one from the other. This process of separation also creates, for example, racialism and hate; you of course could go on from this and say evil and demonic tendencies.
This is odd for me to think like this as I was brought up as an atheist, of a limited consciousness to certain specifics of existence as whole. I observed that atheism wasn't just limiting my consciousness; I also looked at the whole existence as a singular organism, not of a separated organism trying to control all other organism not of itself.
Having researched in the way the Eastern and Western mind thinks in all of us, it would seem that my Eastern mind observed one organism even while my Western mind was focused on the individualistic side of existence. Yes, we are individuals but individuals existing in a holistic existence, an existence of observation of participation of the ego. Ego simply means to individualise existence into separate parts.
A lot of people perceive this individualising, the separation of a singular organism or consciousness, as an illusion. Illusion refers to something that is fake, not of a real existence. So, what is the observer observing? Why would the observer of ego existences observe anything that was an illusion? To do this would be of the ego; this is not the observer, considering the observer is egoless, only the ego would bother to perceive and observe an illusion!!
What is being observed are ego existences, a part of the organism in motion. It's important here not to perceive everything as just being of materialism where matter is the only reality. The observer is not of matter for matter takes motion, the observer is simply motionless therefore not of matter.
The ego often separates one from the other; thereby individualising its existence separate to other existences. Seen as the Western mind is of individualising, you could easily perceive that the Western mind is of the ego and the Eastern mind is of egolessness. I don't think this is far from the truth considering that the Western and Eastern mind is within everyone. What becomes more predominant reflects our thoughts and feelings, either that be of the ego or egolessness/selflessness.
What the ego seems to do on a regular basis is to perceive that ego existences are separate to the egoless existence; this is while the observer observes only one organism in motion. It's still of one organism even when the observer is observing itself in observation, it's all one organism either in motion or not. Look at this way. Yin and yang can often act as one organism when in harmony to each other. When one is asleep and the other is awake, are they still not of one organism?
It's advisable and wise to be aware how our egos behave; separating a singular organism into numerous individualistic organisms to serve its own self-worth.......
It is really good to see that science is looking at everything being of one organism, of non-duality. However, it is sad for people like me observing new age spirituality doing the opposite, trying to separate itself from something it doesn't desire to be a part of. When you are a part of the whole organism, no amount of perceived separation will separate you from this organism. You can become as perceived evil or saintly as much as you like, you are still a part of the whole organism as a whole.
So how do you create a more constructive existence/reality? By simply being aware that you are a part of the whole organism without exception, within this, the destructive ways of the organism become insignificant in comparison to the whole organism. Yes I know, this is hard to comprehend for the Western mind and understandably so.
Alan Wilson Watts was a British philosopher who interpreted and popularised Eastern philosophy for a Western audience. What is being said here is very much of the Eastern mind, of course the Western mind being what it is, desires to separate itself from the Eastern mind!!
Saturday, 14 July 2018
Written by Mathew Naismith
I awoke during the night holding my hand out; this is of course no big deal. What was a big deal was what I perceived or envisioned that I was holding in my hand in awe, the entire existence as a whole. The wonderment I experienced wasn't just to do with what I was holding; it was to do with how the entire existence exists.
One simply creates the other, for example, bad creates good, negative creates positive, awareness creates unawareness, dark creates light and of course visa-versa. There was no perception that one was above another. That some almighty high level of consciousness resides as an ultimate state over all other states. What was obvious is that existence was of the ego and non-existence was egoless.
However, what's in observation of existence? What is the observer's state of consciousness to all other states of consciousness? As I was doing, I was in observation of existences as a whole. It was like observing a singular organism in motion with itself. It seemed to be important for me to perceive the whole existence as a singular organism, more importantly, an organism in motion with itself.
From an ego point of view, this observing state of consciousness is going to be desired to be the ultimate state over all other states. To do this, the ego has to put this state above all other states. The ego does this in different ways through the perception of God, light and love, some perceived ultimate state or however the ego desires to perceives this state to be. Don't get me wrong here, it's good that the ego does this; at least this gives the ego a perception of something more than an existence of ego. The organism in motion with itself is simply pure ego.
What is in observation of the entire ego existence, this singular organism in motion with itself, is a state void of the ego. This gives the perception, from an ego point of view, of a non-existence. As you could imagine from an egoless point of view, this is clearly not the case. Existence is of both ego and egoless states of existence. Just because one is of observation void of participation, void of the ego therefore motion, doesn't mean the observer doesn't exist!!
Being the observer observing the entire ego existence, isn't in observation of the entire existence when excluding observing the observer as well. Within my own actions here, I am also observing the observer in observation of the ego's existence. In other words, I have observed all of existence by observing the ego's existence, the participator, and the egoless existence, the observer in observation.
My ego wishes it could remember the dream that incited my experience here; it was not to be........
I decided to look up on related topics and came up with the following.
Monday, 27 June 2016
Written by Mathew Naismith
I will start this post of with the definition of oneness, the reason for this will present itself through the post. We seem to have a different definition and perception of oneness giving us, at times, a hugely different perspective to other perceptions, of course a true sense of oneness means all perspectives and perceptions are one of the same thing even though expressed in diffident ways. Stating one perspective is of oneness and others is not, is like stating yin represents oneness but yang doesn't, of course without yang, yin is not of oneness as yin is not whole without yang.
Just because one is dissimilar to another, they are not of the same thing like bad and good, negative and positive yin and yang, we are actually stating one represents oneness and the other doesn't. Of course the more pleasant one has to be of oneness and the other one not of oneness, what else would the ego perceive!!
Definition of Oneness
- the fact or state of being unified or whole, though comprised of two or more parts.
"the oneness of all suffering people"
- the fact or state of being one in number.
"holding to the oneness of God the Father as the only God"
”Oneness isn't something we came from, it's something we are.
Everything is a depiction of oneness as a whole, not a oneness
separate from the whole.
Oneness means what is means, the whole of all of what we are,
not the whole of what we desire of what we are!!"....Mathew G
Extract: Imagine that you’re the whole universe; you live in total joy and bliss. Imagine there is no past or future, only now. Imagine there is no space or time, just an unbounded eternity. Imagine endless peace, harmony, and unconditional love. Imagine no fear and equality in all things. This is Oneness.
So joy and bliss represent oneness, all else that is not of joy and bliss isn't oneness. This non-joyousness is often judged as an illusion, it's not apart of this oneness because it's an illusion!! Of course to have an illusion in the first place, lets say a yin, there has to be a reality (yang) to start with and believe it or not, visa-versa. Do not be tricked by the ego, it wants one or the other to be the truth or of oneness, not both as a whole!!
Oneness isn't defined by one part of something as the definition of oneness states, it would be like saying, "A true sense of oneness is that everything has to be of joy and bliss to be of oneness". Joy and bliss is but one part of the whole, the other, if our egos like it or not, is sadness and disharmony. The definition of oneness states whole to begin with and most importantly, unified.
Yes unified, the unification of joy and sadness, bliss and disharmony, yin and yang, this is the true sense of oneness, not of one part or the other as the ego chooses. This is Eastern philosophy......
Now the second definition is of Western philosophy, it clearly states that God represents oneness. Being that everything has been created from this one energy source and that we are of this one energy source but also considering the holey trinity, we are of one source but are at the same time expressive of a separate part of this one source. So once a part of this one source is expressive of one part of this source, it's still considered to be apart of this oneness we often call God!!
I think both Western and Eastern philosophies state the same thing no matter how separate one part seems to be from the whole, it's all representative of oneness no matter how it's expressed.
We have created a problem were a problem needn't exist, the problem is expressing ourselves to extreme extents. Oneness has to be of joy and bliss as opposed to the extreme expressions of sadness and disharmony. Has anyone experienced a conscious state that there was no differentiation between joy and sadness, bliss and disharmony, in other words a true sense of balance? Joy and bliss separated from sadness and disharmony isn't a true sense of peace and tranquillity, it's transitory therefore of the finite, not the infinite. However, when joy and bliss are united with sadness and disharmony, you then create peace and tranquillity that is based on the infinite, this is a depiction of a truer sense of peace and tranquillity that is perpetual, long lasting.
The only reason we experience extremes is through motion, the more excessive the motion, the more extremes we will experience. Balance expresses very little motion therefore is less of motion therefore extremes and yes it is this simple......