Balance Creates Love

Written By Mathew Naismith

To me, a true sense of balance creates love through a natural process in states of balance, the reason I think this is explained in the following post I posted on a forum. Balance/moderation is simply bliss which creates a sense of love of everything void of bias or prejudice. A moderated thought process negates all extremes thus creating a true sense of balance that then creates a true sense of love.

As we go within, extremes have less of an influence over us, the extrication of these extremes are simply replaced with a sense of love. The reason for this is simple; extremes denote imbalances and lust/desire, by becoming less influenced by extremes bring balance which allows a truer sense of love to influence us instead of extremes. Influences from extremes are simply replaced by the influences of love.   

_______________________

This is interesting, is a true state of balance of divine consciousness (spirit) or human consciousness (mind)? 

Considering that humans have always and probably always will express extremes, it is unlikely a true state of balance is of human consciousness; it's probably why human consciousness struggles to maintain some kind of balance in life.

When we presume and perceive that divine consciousness is love and that love is above all else, is this not an expression of an extreme. It's very human to desire the opposite of what one is existing in, especially if one is not physiologically happy with their present environment.

Consider this, is not saying that divine consciousness is primarily of love not stating an absolute? If we took away all the love and hate within the world, all we would be left with is bliss, the reason for this lies within these extreme expressions. There is no true sense of balance within extreme expressions, in one trying to over power the other all the times, a true sense of balance simply can't exist within such an existence.

So why do we perceive that divine consciousness is only of an extreme such as love?

Psychologically looking at this, human nature perceives what it desires to be of, not what it doesn't desire to be of, especially if it has any kind of disdain (contempt) towards it's present environment. It is simply natural for humans to desire something to be what it's not just to escape from its present environment.

It is natural when a state of true balance exists bliss and love are present, however, when a state of imbalance exists, chaos and hate are present and naturally so. So is divine conciseness (spirit) primarily of and expressive of love or balance?  If the spirit within all things was of an extreme, everything would also express and be of extremes but there simply not.

So if everything of the spirit within all things is balance, why isn't everything of balance?  Where you have yin and yang, is where you have balance but you also have imbalance, it's simply a natural law of existence as a whole.

Human represents imbalance where divine consciousness represents balance. To me, we presume too much while collectively in a state of chaos and mayhem. The divine consciousness, unlike ourselves, is not of an extreme of any kind, we simply perceive it to be so because of what we psychologically desire.

As of many Eastern teachings teach, balance/moderation is the key, not love.

“Simplicity, patience, compassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in actions and thoughts, you return to the source of being.
Patient with both friends and enemies,
you accord with the way things are.
Compassionate toward yourself,
you reconcile all beings in the world.” 
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

 “Your hand opens and closes, opens and closes. If it were always a fist or always stretched open, you would be paralysed. Your deepest presence is in every small contracting and expanding, the two as beautifully balanced and coordinated as birds' wings.” 
― Jalaluddin Rumi, The Essential Rumi

You can be still and still moving. Content even in your discontent.

Ram Dass

Intuition, a More Conscious Consciousness

Written by Mathew Naismith 

Is our intuition more consciously conscious and aware than our human consciousness? Is our dream state more consciously conscious than our awakened state? Considering the dreams I have experienced myself, this could well be the case. In relation to intuition, I have not myself experienced any significant expansion of consciousness intuitively but I have read of a number of cases where you could definitely say intuitiveness is more aware therefore more conscious.

In saying that I have not significantly experienced an expanded conscious state intuitively is not entirely true, I have made a number of correct predictions in my life. This on it's own doesn't qualify for me to say that intuitiveness is more consciously expanded to what we know to be a conscious, an awakened and aware state, however, in conjunction with other people's experiences, I would be comfortable to say intuitiveness is far more consciously aware than what we normally deem as being consciously aware.

Of course in saying all this, intuition isn't known for it's reasoning or observation therefore consciousness, I of course don't agree to this view altogether. I wrote the following on a forum.    

______________________________

Consciousness: An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation, also meaning, Having knowledge of, a knowingness.

Cognition; is the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning.

When we have a gut feeling or intuitive insights, we are not being cognitive, we are simply expressing intuitive insights, of course intuition isn't suppose to be of observation as well as reasoning. I think intuitive observation is made on a different plain or dimension to the physical plane/dimension.

This is consciousness even if our human consciousness is unaware of this, in actuality intuitive states are probably more aware and even more conscious than our human state of consciousness.

What about the collective consciousness, is this not more conscious than our human state of consciousness? The human state is often referred to as a dream state for very good reasons, it's only aware of what it's aware of through observation and reasoning which limits it's consciousness. Is human consciousness truly conscious or is our intuitive state more conscious than our human consciousness?

The human psyche isn't conscious because of the limitations of human consciousness, this of course is governed by it's awareness which is highly limited. What would occur if we detached ourselves from our present human awareness? We would simply free ourselves, our consciousness, from these limitations, we would in turn be more aware not less aware. A number of spiritual practices prove this is the case.

So when I usually make reference to consciousness, it's not of human consciousness I speak of but a much more conscious consciousness. I am often aware of my consciousness observing myself observing myself in certain states of consciousness, the funny thing is my ego doesn't always like what is being observed, it's a laugh really.

I think the human psyche and it's consciousness isn't as conscious as it thinks it is.

________________________

Is our conscious more consciously aware than our subconscious? The following explains why it's not and in actuality it's our subconscious that is more consciously aware. 

http://www.evsc.net/research/intuition-subliminal-perception-and-the-subconscious     

Extract: What I find highly intriguing though, is the fact that our subconscious mind has access to a much faster and more detailed library of knowledge than our conscious mind does. Studies show that our subconscious senses at a higher resolution (Small Difference in Sensation, 1884) and at a higher sampling rate (Mere Exposure Effect, 1980) than we are aware of.

Within 1-2 seconds intuition can tell you if a person might be lying to you, if a chess game might be lost or if a situation might become dangerous. It tells you in the form of a gut-feeling, delivering the final conclusions of a long debate without revealing any of the rational behind it. It relies on your unconscious picking up on cues in the environment, on discovering micro-expressions on someone’s face, on comparing situations to hundreds and thousands similar ones housed in your memory and even digs into genetically and biologically hard-coded instincts. 

________________________

Now consider a consciousness outside human influence, outside human conscious limitations of the brain, now consider the intuition from a mind outside these human limitations. What we call our conscious state is far less consciously aware than we could ever imagine, of course this is going to be hard to imagine for a consciousness with so many limitations and so consciously unaware.

When spiritual people say they have become enlightened, they mean to say they are more consciously alive and aware than ever before, of course enlightened means becoming more consciously aware than before. You could also say enlightenment is also an awakening, an awakening from a conscious state that is in actuality anything but consciously aware.

             

Consciousness and Awareness

Written by Mathew Naismith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So can consciousness exist without awareness?

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

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

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

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

Infinite and Finite Ideologies /Philosophies

Written by Mathew Naismith

Before considering following an ideology and or philosophy consider this, which one's are limiting and which one aren't. A good example of this is the ego limiting or liberating  physically and through it's ideologies and /or philosophies. Is one set of ideologies and /or philosophies stifling/limiting to all other ideologies and /or philosophies within an ideology/philosophy?

Can an ideology/philosophy be infinite in nature if it has limits within it's ideologies and philosophies? The answer of course is no as all limitations are of the finite and not of the infinite, infinite simply refers to which that is limitless where's finite refers to which that is limited. Do we want to be governed by what is finite or infinite in nature? Considering that human consciousness is limited and that divine consciousness is limitless, we need to make a choice which one we want or even need to be governed by.

Is it wise to be governed entirely by an ideology/philosophy that is infinite in nature while existing in an existence that is governed by finite consciousness?

Infinite consciousness simply means there are no limitations within the expressions of this consciousness; this consciousness therefore is able to be expressed in a finite existence. However, finite consciousness is unable to be expressed within an infinite consciousness because of it's limitations. You simply can't limit yourself to human perspectives within divine consciousness because divine consciousness is divine because it's unlimited (infinite) nature.

I should say when I talk about a divine consciousness, I am talking about a consciousness that is unlimited and infinite in nature, in actuality, divine consciousness is able to create anything and everything because it's not limited.

The following are my replies to other people on a forum, life can be limiting or limitless, this is our choice.

____________________________

I don't faze you do I I Spirit 3, I respect this; you simply just go with the flow within the present, in my mind quite commendable.

Yes, I suppose so, is love and light a creation from it's opposite making the opposite just as worthy as love and light or visa-versa.  I suppose motion works like this, action reaction, push and pull, cause and effect. I was speaking with a Malaysian bloke for some time on and off, he often mentioned the natural flow of the  push and pull effect of motion, my western mind had a hard time comprehending where he was coming from at times but in all it made sense to me.  He basically said all we need to do is get off the treadmill for all motion creates delusions to one extent or another. 

I simply concur, everything is of and comes from spirit/consciousness.

You know how I bag/acknowledge the ways of a black and white mentality, I too express this because how is the ego suppose to become aware if it's not put in a way that the ego can comprehend and understand?  Motion is often of black and white for instance, light and dark dominating each other, however, to get off the treadmill one has to learn the ways of the black and white mentality of the ego, the paradox is, the ego needs a black and white comprehension to do this, to start with, but know when to let go of this black and white mentality as well.

It's indeed all natural but I can see that it might not seem that way as well.

____________________________

Do we need to plan therefore control?  I think the ego needs to plan where our divine self doesn't, what is there to plan when you are everything and are aware of everything?

In my mind, we need to be caring thoughtful of the ego without being controlling, I often think of the ego as my child that needs my loving attention to become aware and adult in it's motions, otherwise it's going to be and act in a self-cantered way like a spoilt brat. I think our present reality shows this.

You don't have to be controlling towards your child, just simply guiding the child through simple awareness. Guiding isn't controlling, it's leading by example, going with the flow of awareness rather than going against the flow of awareness. Control is set to certain specifics of awareness, it's only of the awareness of what can be controlled by the ego, all else is usually discarded or ignored.

The thing with love and light is it's apart of the process that was created by the process itself, the process of the ego being in control. Think of it as a treadmill, the control of the treadmill keeps us in motion but when we get off the treadmill; are we still controlled by the treadmill? We simply got off the process of control. Getting off from one life process creating another life process is the same as getting off from the control of the treadmill; we simply stopped the ego controlling us thus creating yet another process and on it goes.

I think treating the process of love and light as a be and end all is a huge mistake as it's still apart of the process of control. I have spoken to a number of Eastern minded people on this, they all say all we need to do is release ourselves from this control, from this process, to be our whole self. Let's be honest, love and light is still about taking control rather than releasing it. I think the Western mind has a huge problem in comprehending this; it's probably why so many Western minded people are upset with me in what I write, I'm simply seen as a threat to the process of control. 

My stepdaughter Karla has won three world titles in a row now; it's a world record in women's IPSC shooting. We guided Karla rather than controlled Karla.       

The Flow of Motion

Written by Mathew Naismith       

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

  __________________________   

An interesting perspective alejo18qd. 

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

Motionlessness = egoless

Motion = ego

Narcissism = ego in control. 

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

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

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

__________________________

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

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

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

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

__________________________

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

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

Is the illusion real or not?

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

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

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

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

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

Chosen Path

Written by Mathew Naismith

I've experienced some interesting interactions with other people recently. Are people like me critically judgemental or simply expressing what we observe in the absence of a black and white mentality? It's wise to be aware when people lash out at other people, it's good sign their being controlled by the ego. This reaction of course needs a depiction of one thing in reference to something else, for example, the comparing of a negative in reference to a positive. It's what I call a black and white mentality; it has to be one or the other.

When an ego in control lashes out in critical judgment, this has to be done through a black and white mentality, being that the ego in control is always positive and the critically judged is always negative. How often do people like me critically judge like this, it's simply wrong or right, negative or positive, black or white? Now, how many other people judge through a wrong or right, negative or positive, black or white mentality? It is however natural for the ego in control to turn the tables or the emphasis from itself to anything else threatening it's control and existence, people like me are a prime example of this.             

I will now share a recent post I posted on a forum that is in relation to this topic, I also inserted one of my replies I wrote.   

_______________________

I don't get this, maybe someone on here can assist me with this.

People like me are often critically judged as being narcissistic, negative, egotistical, toxic and so on it goes, for simply expressing our own experiences and observations. People like me usually observe through the absence of a black and white mentality, an ego in control obviously finds this most threatening.

People's egos who judge through a black and white mentality, will often define anyone not of their egos liking narcissistic, negative, egotistical, toxic and so on, how else would anyone critically judged other people in this way?

Through the judgment of a black and white mentality, people like me are supposed to be (judged) narcissistic. Just recently I wrote a post stating first up that I know little of this particular subject, I also often state that a lot of what I write is channelled through me and not from me. I have even stated that what is being channelled through me I know very little about.

I'm also suppose to be (judged) egotistical, a strange egotism when I often express myself in a way that a controlling ego finds threatening, in the process making myself exceptionally unpopular. Just because someone expresses their experiences that questions the control the ego has over us, doesn't make the person egotistical but of course it will to an ego in control.

It's like a drug addict addicted to an addiction, the controlling ego will lash out at anything questioning it's existence and it's control. The controlling ego sees people like me as being a huge threat to it's control, of course the ego in control is going to lash out like this, just like a drug addict.

People like me are also supposed to be (judged) as being judgmentally critical. If I was to judge in accordance with a black and white mentality, of course I would be judgmentally critical. Honestly, I would be exactly like the people who judge people like me so critically through their black and white mentality.

Of course an ego in control is going to lash out like this, it's perfectly natural for an ego in control to lash our in fear of it's own control and existence. In actuality, if people's egos didn't lash out at people like me, I simply wouldn't be following my chosen path in life.

__________________________

My Reply

Making reference to old energy patterns refer to the past, you can't have a perception of time without making reference to the ego as time is motion and all motion is ego.

So, if I was to refer to certain patterns as being old, I am in actuality making reference directly and mainly to the ego. 

Old is in reference to new, a black and white mentality, which can only exist in an ego based reality/existence.  This is exactly how the ego tricks us in thinking the new isn't of the ego when it's just as much if not more of the ego.  There is simply no new or old in relation the divine consciousness, why? The divine consciousness is infinite in nature, not finite, this simply means it's not based on time but timelessness. Because there is no time, the perception of old or new can't exist because the perception of old and new needs a starting point of origin to exist  to start with, there is simply no starting point of origin within the divine consciousness.  In actuality, the divine consciousness isn't above human consciousness, only the ego in control perceives this to be the case. One being over and above another is pure ego, nothing else.     

Also, having any kind of disdain for the old consciousness is egotistical; this includes having disdain for anyone who defends this so-called old consciousness.  In my mind, too many people into spirituality today exist in disdain, this is pure ego for only can the ego express disdain. 

Do people like me truly defend this old consciousness?  When you truly live by the divine, what is old and new, black and white? This kind of consciousness in my mind can't possibility exist within the divine consciousness but many people obviously think it  does.  The ego can be exceptionally deceptive, it's wise to be aware of this, but as always, the ego will at all cost refute what I have stated here, or, it is simply unable to acknowledge what I have stated here. 

 Are people like me narcissistic or egotistical for pointing out the obvious? The ego in control will always say yes, however, the ego that isn't in control will say no for obvious reasons.  Please don't be duped by the ego, it's a tricky little devil but only when in control.   

  

I should point out, when people like me make reference to egotistical in relation to myself or others, this observation isn't of disdain like the ego in control  perceives, it's simply pointing out an obvious that motion is naturally limiting, nothing more. People like me simply don't have disdain for egotism for it's not of the divine consciousness to do so. If to the controlling ego defending old consciousness is ego, people like me are happy to be of the ego in the egos mind, for this shows we are not of the ego but of the divine.  Simply, the ego is a trickster, it will always accuse itself of being of itself, within this, the ego will always be in control.

Ok, I see now, acknowledging that the divine consciousness isn't of some higher stature than human consciousness is going to be impossible to imagine.

There is no true separation between the divine consciousness and human consciousness, within this understanding, how can divine consciousness be of a higher stature? Only through ego is everything separated and of levels/separations. 

As I understand it, divine consciousness only observes a difference in motion between itself and human consciousness. Human consciousness is merely seen as limited in nature, it's not judged as being of a lower stature to itself. Yes, the ego will see that a more limited consciousness as being of a lower stature, only can the ego judge in levels like this, this is not the case for the divine consciousness.

So if a consciousness is limited, it's of a lower stature!! Only to the ego in control is this the case, so why an ego in control? The perception of levels is all about control, the control and dominance of a lower level, in other words, control and dominance over a consciousness that is limited.

Divine consciousness simply means a limitless consciousness, an infinite consciousness in nature.   

Releasing Ourselves from Set Standards

Written by Mathew Naismith

I'm sorry for the syntax errors and non-legible grammar of recent; trying to assist the painter is causing a lot of physical and mental discomfort, especially at present. My grammatical coherency isn't fully coherent within it's structuring.

To a lot of people, the situation I am in would be judged as being highly negative, the inability to properly structurally form legible posts is debilitating to what I am writing. This of course can be debilitating to the reader by impairing their coherency in what I am writing, to a lot of people, this is negative but not to people like me.

When you start reading something that isn't altogether coherent, you decide at that point if to read on or not. If you decide not to read on because of the incoherency in what you are reading, you are simply not meant to read it, it's not for you.

I often read posts and threads that are not altogether structured properly, just because it's not structured properly doesn't mean it isn't insightful. We often judge in accordance inline with the kind of structured coherency expressed, if it's not up to our standards, it becomes non-legible, if it's up to our standards, it's of course legible.

The personal standards we judge everything in accordance with can be highly critical, just because something isn't up to our own personal standards doesn't mean it's negative or bad in someway, it simply means it's not up to our critical personal standards. When we express certain standards, we limit ourselves to these standards, all else other than our own personal standards become unrecognisable.

When we fixate ourselves to certain ideologies, most often all other ideologies become incoherent to us, they simply become an unrecognisable ideology we can't possibly relate to. Within this very action, we have limited ourselves to certain set perspectives and perceptions. I think by doing this we lose our connection with the infinite side of life, of course all we are left with is the finite, a consciousness of limited range and possibilities.

The reason why trauma isn't a big deal or negative for people like me is that trauma is finite in nature. If a consciousness predominantly focuses on the finite, the consciousness involved would naturally become limited within it's range and understanding, and yes, this quite naturally occurs. You will also find that a consciousness that focusing on the finite will judge more negatives within their environment than someone who focuses on the infinite.

Focusing on the infinite instead of the finite allows one to cohere and understand more of their present environment, this includes a reality that is in and creates it's own traumas. How often do we cohere and want to understand anything we have judged as negative when focused on the finite?

This is funny; by focusing on the finite we create standards, however, by focusing on the infinite there are no standards, standards simply don't and can't exist within the infinite. When a consciousness has no set standards, what naturally occurs? Awareness and quite naturally without effort, of course the opposite naturally occurs when we do have set standards. This is understandable because standards mean limitations and the more set our standards become, the more limited our consciousness naturally becomes.

Once our own vibrations are conditioned to certain set standards, we will of course naturally feel that any other vibrations that our own set standards are incoherent towards will feel negative. The reason for this lays in that our own set standards which make everything else not of these standards incoherent, it's this incoherency that gives us bad vibrations.

There are no bad vibrations, this is until our own standards create these vibrations, they simply don't exist until we create them which can only be created if we focus on the finite.

Try to relate the finite with ego, finite existence is ego where's infinite existence is egoless, of course to the ego, infinite existence is hard to comprehend because infinite existence is incoherent to the egos standards. This is due to the egos standards being set to everything relating to the ego, to finite existence, there is nothing beyond ego according to the ego. How many Western minded atheists believe consciousness couldn't exist beyond the physical limits of the brain? This is even after science is proving otherwise!!

To me, finite existence is ego and infinite existence is egoless, the reason for this is that there are no standards within an infinite state of existence. By simply releasing ourselves from our set standards, our limitations set by these standards, infinite existence automatically replaces finite existence.

Look at it this way. You have a clean body of water until the ego pollutes the water. By simply releasing the water from this pollution the water becomes clean again, the water is freed from the limitation that the pollution limited the water to. The water is limited because you can't drink it and nothing can live in it, it is therefore limited and subjected to certain set standards until these standards are lifted. Take away our own set standards, what are we naturally left with? A pure state of existence that isn't hindered by limitations, a state of infinite existence. The ego is naturally limiting and is only able to create finite existences, this is it's natural limitations brought about by it's own set standards.