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........
