Written by Mathew Naismith
I was recently asked what is my point I'm trying to make
when making reverence to perceiving beyond present day ideologies and
philosophies. My point certainly isn't that ideologies and philosophies should
have no further part in our lives, so what is my point? I think the following
should explain this in some way to some extent, I gave this in reply to someone
asking me what is my point.
My point is perceiving beyond these obvious limited
ideologies/philosophies, especially when people of one ideology/philosophy
think their ideologies/philosophies are in anyway somehow above other people's
ideologies/philosophies.
In one sense Buddhism is, but in another sense so is Hinduism and Christianity but only to a person who looks beyond these belief systems and isms.
In one sense Buddhism is, but in another sense so is Hinduism and Christianity but only to a person who looks beyond these belief systems and isms.
I will explain this further using the sciences as an
example.
General science is limited to logics, if it doesn't make
logical sense or can be logically proven at a particular point in time, it
can't exist. Logics in this case is used as an ideology in a sense that logics
is fixated to one point of reasoning, any other reasoning process other than
logical is disregarded. The problem with this kind of reasoning or perception
is that it is limited to logics, in this case logics within general science has
become a doctrine, a belief that if it isn't logically proven, it can't exist.
Like with religions/ideologies, there are different sciences
and philosophies that use different reasoning
processes, metaphysics is one and quantum physics is another. These science techniques perceive beyond the
normal practice of general science, does it make these science techniques more
superior than general sciences? At first we would say most definitely yes,
however, this isn't the case. For example, people into Buddhism or Christianity
seem to perceive that their religion/philosophies are superior in some way but
the question is to whom?
I recently received the following reply from a good internet
friend of mine.
In discussion once, I mentioned that I see the Creator
as a single source; I did, however, acknowledge that much is perspective,
illustrating by saying "what appears to be a star from a distance, can
become a galaxy on closer inspection.
This is a prime example of someone perceiving beyond a
fixated perception that the creator is of a single source, even though the
perception at that point in time tells us that the creator is of a single
source.
In this case you could perceive that a philosophy, not
influenced by ideological concepts, is being used here as a true sense of
philosophy never fixates itself to a particular concept or idea. I know this
person perceives beyond the thinking mind and uses the inner mind, in other
words this person uses a mind not influenced by the five senses. This person
still uses the mind influenced by the five sense, but, they obviously, to me,
also use what I call the inner mind. We
of course all use the mind influenced by the five senses and logics at times in
one way or another.
If anyone is interested, this person also has their own
Google community titled World Peace.
To whom is a particular ideology/philosophy more superior or
more of the absolute truth than other ideologies and philosophies?
If I met Buddha, for example, and he started telling me how
he's perceptions are the be and end all, they are supreme to all other
perceptions, I would just simply laugh at him for the simple reason no ones
perception is supreme over and above another.
For example, are the sciences or Hinduism the answer to all of what is?
The answer to this is simply no, consciousness itself is infinite, this means
it's forever changing and is endless
within it's possibilities and creations. This also means consciousness isn't
fixated to one perceptions or group of perceptions, it's basically boundless
and unlimited within it's perceptions.
Lets say my perceptions were actually the be and end all,
they were supreme over all other perceptions, in this case I would be able to
become aware of the worthiness of all other perceptions, as within the present,
each perception has it's place within consciousness as a whole.
OK, lets put it
another way, if I was a devout Christian, would it be wise for me to go into an
environment destructive towards such perceptions? Within that present moment,
Christianity is more harmful to me, it basically has no value in such an
environment, however, if I was to perceive and adjust to my present
environment, my experiences would be a lot different.
What would happen to Buddha and Jesus, for example, if they returned? They wouldn't last long
even though their perceptions go way beyond normal human perceptions. This
means their perceptions have no substance or creed within such a reality, there
perceptions are seemingly worthless even though their perceptions are more
aware and wise.
It matters not how aware or supreme a perception is, either
it be an ideology, philosophy or
science, if such perceptions don't belong within a certain reality, they are
meaningless. Indeed, a lot of what I write about is meaningless within this
reality, it just doesn't fit within the main stream of things, so why do people
like me still express themselves?
Simple, if I wasn't supposed to be able to perceive the way
I do, I wouldn't be able to. No matter how you perceive, it's worthy, maybe not too worthy within the
reality we are presently experiencing but it's still worthy no matter what perception
you express and follow. This means what ever ideology, philosophy or science
you perceive through, it's still worthy no matter what environment you are in,
however, just because the ideology, philosophy or science you perceive through
is your be and end all, doesn't mean it's everybody else's!!
The question is now, have people like me adjusted to our
present environment? Absolutely, but not
at the total expense of our own perceptions, its wise to adjust to the
conditions of our environment for only in this can we still express our own
perceptions to some degree.
The controlling ego doesn't like to adjust or compromise for
within this, it loses control, it's this simple!!
if its not logical its not real ? when has religion ever been logical ? when has the brain ever reprieved that all should be rational ? without ill-rational, we would not have painters , and writers , we would not have had the prophets, and the seers, some things just cant be explained away by rational thought , and sometimes their just isn't a explanation. thank good read .
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely Alma, how creative and diverse would have we been without perceiving beyond logic's? Scary thought indeed.
Delete