Spirituality-A Strange Existence

Written by Mathew Naismith

This post is probably going to be controversial for some people depending on what our beliefs are and how emotionally attached we are to this reality and our ideological principles.  I view that nothing in realities like this one is eternal; it’s transitory as nothing ever stays the same including the species we call human.

Energy Sources: First of all I would like to start off with something quite controversial, high conscious entities needing to be of lower vibrations to exist in realities of low vibrations like this one.  How would such a high vibrational entity exist within such a low vibrational existence?  A high vibrational entity or energy source couldn’t exist in such a state unless it became physically and mentally of a lower vibrative energy source. I feel the higher an entity is the lower the form this higher entity needs to take on to even remotely exist within a reality like this one. This means a higher energy source/entity needs to either choose a life of misery or opulence, an egotistical life. Does this mean everybody else who isn’t living in misery or of opulence isn’t of a higher vibratory energy source? Not exactly!!

What has happened is a lot of the people who are between living in misery and opulence have either learnt to exist in a low vibratory existence, without needing to exist in a low vibratory form, or are not aware of a higher vibrational existence, in other words they have never, at the soul level, existed as a higher vibration than what they are now.  It takes a lot of energy for a high vibratory energy source to exist in a low vibrational existence, as this reality, which manifests itself as physical and mental misery or opulence.  What I am saying is, because these higher energy forms exist in low vibrational realities, they have created misery and opulence within realities like this one, they have made this reality what it is today, chaotic and destructive.  You might ask how could a higher more loving entity/energy source create such a thing and the answer is ignorance, the lower the vibrations are within a reality the more in ignorance we are in to exist in such a reality, a high vibrational entity needs ignorance to exist in such realities as this one.  Low vibrations are indicative of ignorance.

Ask yourself this, could a high energy source as God exist as an individual in realities like this one without being in a lower vibrational form?  The answer to me is of course no.  I did say it was going to be controversial!!

Consciousness: We exist in a transitory ever changing reality/existence, humans haven’t always been humans as is the same with the planet we are on, it’s always changing, nothing in realities like this one are permanent/eternal.   This is because everything that exists is made up of vibrational frequencies; nothing can exist unless it’s vibrating.  No vibration is eternal within this kind of reality for the main reason realties like this one are made up of fragmented consciousness, once you fragment consciousness you create a consciousness that will always change like the human species for example. The human species has evolved from completely different forms as it changed within it’s environment and the more it become aware of it’s environment the more the human species changed. 

A non-fragmented consciousness is in tune with itself, in other words it doesn’t have various a numerous vibrational frequencies to contend with for the main reason this kind of consciousness isn’t fragmented.  Once you fragment consciousness, you bring into existence various and numerous vibrational frequencies that create various forms such as the human species for example. This is due to these forms being created from fragmented consciousness; anything created from fragmented consciousness is transitory.  This is why a high energy source, like what we call God, isn’t transitory but eternal.

Science:  This is the problem in being fixated on a particular ideological principle such as science or the various religions; a problem exists because we think our ideological principles are eternal when we live within an obvious transitory reality created by fragmented consciousness.  This is a strange existence, how could we think that anything within a fragmented conscious reality is going to be eternal?  Science might say that this is a molecule, once a molecule always a molecule; you can’t change this law like the law of relativity. Once anything becomes law or of doctrines we have determined that these things are of eternity when we exist within a transitory reality created by fragmented consciousness, this makes no sense to me!!

Does this mean a molecule doesn’t exist or the law of relativity isn’t viable or that religious doctrines are nonsense?  No, just because consciousness was fragmented, which in turn created various and numerous vibrational frequencies, doesn’t mean these things don’t exist or are not viable, it just means they are not eternal.  Science, as the same as religion, believes their ideological principles are eternal, they are either law or of doctrines/rules that can’t change, this of course happens when people live too much in ignorance and the more fixated we become to a particular ideology the more in ignorance we become.  This of course in turn creates more chaos and destruction as ignorance is of lower vibrations.  In a higher vibrational existence, it is impossible to create chaos and destruction because of the awareness as opposed to ignorance, anything of awareness/wisdom cannot create chaos or destruction as the same of a higher source of energy as God can’t individually exist in a lower form of being.   

You would think I love being controversial but I don’t, I’m really only writing what comes to me, how much I write about is viable is up to the individual!! 

Consciousness, Wisdom and Ideological Principles

Written by Mathew Naismith

Man, through an ideological principle as science, has created the God particle and computer simulations that mimic the actual creation of a universe. The ideological principle of science hasn’t done this on it’s own, it’s relied on centuries of awareness and knowledge from many ideological principles to be able to even think of creating a universe, in other word a culmination of human consciousness. We should remember that modern day science would not have existed without philosophy and mysticism to begin with.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03hhyzp

It is quite obvious that one singular ideological principle hasn’t accomplished this on it’s own however it has taken one ideological principle to formulate a conclusion that we are able to create a universe in our own right.

Let’s look at this in a different way, did it take one individual person to create the reality we have today? No, it took many individuals, a collective consciousness to create this reality. One man couldn’t create skyscrapers and complex thought on his own, it has taken a collective consciousness to do that.

Modern day science was created from a culmination of ideological thoughts, science certainly hasn’t accomplished this on it’s own but it has formulated a conclusion that man can create universe’s. Science has produced a dilemma however in creating universe’s. Because science has distanced itself from other ideological principles, is it able to create a universe with the same diverse ideological principles as our own universe remembering it has taken numerous ideologies to give us modern day science to start with?  The answer of course would be no, it might be able to create a physical universe but science on it’s own is unable to create a consciousness that can create the sciences and other ideologies through various other ideologies.  Like one individual person (consciousness) didn’t create this reality, science on it’s own would be unable to create a consciousness that would give us the sciences.

Are the sciences that important to us? Only if we are going to create a universe and expand on consciousness itself from a virtual non-conscious state as what has happened to man. 

What is important to realise here is no matter how clever the sciences get, it won’t be able to create consciousness from a totally non-conscious state, the sciences and other ideologies have only enhanced our conscious awareness not created it and in my mind never will be capable of such things. You need consciousness to create consciousness which a lot of people call God, so does this mean one always needs consciousness to create universe’s? Yes, we are on the verge of creating universe’s which takes consciousness so therefore our universe most likely needed a consciousness as well to create it. Science people are really going to be quite upset when they realise you need consciousness to create consciousness or more precisely, rediscover consciousness through various environments. You can’t create consciousness without consciousness therefore this universe was most likely created from a consciousness far beyond our intelligence, wisdom and understanding at present.

For us to create a universe it has taken a culmination of ideologies to produce more aware ideologies to do this, what about the consciousness within a universe, we have a physical universe but what about a conscious awareness, a consciousness that is aware of what is around it? We needed consciousness to create a physical universe but what about an aware consciousness, where does this come from? For our species, this has come from our surroundings so our surroundings (our environment) create conscious awareness but what is our surrounding (the universe itself) created from? The universe was created from consciousness therefore consciousness needed consciousness to become aware basically of itself, it was a recreation or a remembrance of consciousness itself. What I am saying is this consciousness created a physical universe out of it’s own consciousness with the intentions of certain physical entities recreating a conscious awareness within this physical universe.

At this point man hasn’t the wisdom to be aware that in a physical reality it takes, and has taken, numerous ideological principals learnt from our environment to create the awareness we have today especially people who are in the scientific field.  Yes science can recreate universe’s and God particles but can it create consciousness without consciousness?  Science is unaware that it is unable to do this, yes it is able to create universes but it will never be able to create consciousness itself within a universe, it will be a universe void of any significant awareness unless science uses all the ideological principles of man learnt from his environment.

In a physical existence, it takes more than one ideological principle to form awareness; it takes wisdom to know this in the first place. You can now get an understanding of the immense wisdom it has taken to create this universe; it’s a wisdom that uses all ideological principles as one!!

Invalidating Ideological Principles

Written by Mathew Naismith

Suzanne

Do you restore yourself here and now?

Yes.

How to do it?

This can be enlightening to others from you.

Write down a ..... formatted for me please.

AMEN

An interesting question Suzanne, how do you restore yourself right here and now to our truer selves?

Became aware and truly believe my ideological principles aren’t the be and end all but how do we do this?  Become aware it is easier to let go of fixation to any ideological principles than to hang onto them, it’s a lot harder to hang onto ideological principles than it is to let go of them but we have ourselves convinced it’s the other way around.  

By culminating all thoughts (ideological principals) into one, we really negate ideological principles, they are no longer needed and they never truly were needed in a sense.  By hanging on to these principles, we have created chaos I believe and this is why it’s so much harder to hang onto ideological principle than it is to let go of them.  

It all comes down to making ourselves aware, as opposed to believe, that it is a lot easier to let go of these principles than to hang onto them. Making ourselves believe  as opposed to aware takes another set of ideological principles, we are getting nowhere in doing this but being truly aware that it is easier to let go of these principle than to hang onto them, we have accomplished this without separate  ideological principles, we have it turn negated chaos. This will take culminating all principles under one principle to start with I feel and the way to do that is realise all ideological principles were created by us.  If they were created by us, why can’t we culminate them into one?

Don’t make the mistake that ideological principles aren’t important to  us, they are very important to us within our present mentality, we would not have been able to create chaos without this kind of mentality and we are all about creating, we are indeed creators in our own right.  Yes we created something destructive instead of something constructive but can we now constructively create a reality out of destructiveness, pure chaos?  This will take God like tendencies; we should not underestimate ourselves and our true abilities however!!  

Are ideological principles like science and spirituality needed?  I feel this isn’t the right question to ask, the more correct question to me would be like; why are the sciences and spiritualty ideological principles and why do they seem like two different ideologies?  Actually they are not different at all because they are no true ideological principles, ideological principles truly didn’t exist until we created them and if we created them we can negate them, cancel them all.  To become constructive again, we need to cancel out these ideologies that we have created, yes they exist because we created them but we can still make them invalid and that I feel is exactly what we have to do to become constructively creative again if that is what we want to truly do!!

The way to do this isn’t to make ourselves believe all of what I have said here but just become aware of what I have said here that we created ideologies, they just didn’t exist on this planet until we created them. Ask yourself, what other animal species had or has ideological principles?  Before we evolved, no other species on this planet created ideological principles and once we created these principles we created chaos and the more separate principles we have, the more chaotic life became.  

Can all of us just drop all our ideological principles just like that?  No, because we don’t believe we created them in the first place, we need to be truly aware and knowing we crated them to do this. Knowing this, we can then culminate all these principle under one principle, yes we still have a principle but in having one principle we have no opposing principle and if we have nothing opposing what is going to happen to chaos?  To exist, chaos needs opposing sides. Religion has tried to do this, as science is today, but the problem was and is, one ideology has always tried to cancel out the other ideology which has brought us a never ending existence of violence.  Cancelling out another ideology isn’t going to do the trick, if we were wiser today, wisdom would tell us this I feel.

Once we culminate or accept all ideologies as one, we in turn cancel out ideologies altogether by incorporating all ideologies under one principle and in the knowing, within these principles, that we created these ideological principles in the first place. You can’t cancel one ideology without cancelling out all ideologies for in this only lays more destructive mentality and chaos, we really do need to just become more aware of our truer selves, it is that simple.  

I should also say you can't or shouldn't cancel out someone else's ideological principles; this must be done by the people of such ideologies not by other people with their own ideological principals for this will only create more chaos.      

Ideological Principles-No Wrong or Rights

Written by Mathew Naismith

This is going to be quite a heavy read for anyone just into thoughtlessness. I view my life like this, if I was supposed to be completely thoughtless, why did I choose an existence that incorporated a mind? I would have been better existing as a rock not a being with a mind. Yes I believe we should learn thoughtlessness but not over and above the mind but to use thoughtlessness to help us use the mind more wisely.  

I actually wrote the following for an IONS site but once again I’m going to share this around.

I have just thought of an interesting analogy of contrasts; if a person came up to a scientist and said I saw a flying pink elephant ,the scientist would 0% believe them. If the same person came up to a psychotherapist, as opposed to a psychoanalyst, the psychotherapist would 50%-100% believe them, the difference is amazing. The psychotherapist has to believe that this person saw a flying pink elephant even if it was just a delusion.

The psychotherapist doesn’t actually believe themselves a flying pink elephant exists but they do believe that the said person does believe they saw a flying pink elephant. The logics and reasoning processes used between these two sciences are quite obvious. The psychotherapist doesn’t need actual physical proof of such an animal to exist to formulate a deduction but an actual scientist would.  I suppose that is why psychotherapy has it’s own sphere/concepts of reasoning and logics as neuroscience is to physics to one extent or another.  These are not specialised fields for no reason.

This brings me to spirituality; spirituality’s, similar to the sciences, has a huge array of varied ideological principles using different forms of reasoning and logics. Now if a person came up to a spiritually aware person and said I saw a flying pink elephant, what would be the answer? The answer would be between 0%-100% depending on what kind of spirituality/religion they were into.

Logically, how could anyone put all spirituality into one basket (together) especially a logical science minded person? Logically you can’t, just like you can’t place all sciences in one basket but it happens quite frequently. Why do supposed logically minded people do this when it’s so illogical to do so? Dogmatism, to show that every other ideological principle, other than their own, is flawed.  

So every other ideological principle is flawed but didn’t this take flawed illogical logics to make such deductions in the first place? Of course such deductions from such flawed logics can’t be taken seriously.

During the religious Dark Ages, the churches in Europe would not accept any other evidence in contrary to their own ideological principles, any evidence supplied had to be within certain doctrines otherwise it wasn’t accepted as evidence.

Modern day science; this ideological principle uses the same process today, if any said evidence doesn’t conform to their ideological principles of science logics, it’s not evidence.  I get this Dark Age mentality quite a lot on science orientated sites, if any said evidence doesn’t conform to certain science principles; it’s not accepted as evidence just like the churches did back in the Dark Ages of religion.

It is so easy to judge one ideological principle is wrong or right over the other, this would mean psychotherapy is wrong to physics or neuroscience. I have even had a number of science minded people tell me psychotherapy isn’t a science especially when I used psychotherapy to prove a point.  This kind of Dark Age mentality of judgement only clouds our logics, it certainly doesn’t enhance it!!  

Ideological Principles and Dogmatism

Written by Mathew Naismith

Ideology just doesn’t refer to a belief system but any system of thought we take on from science to religion and principles refer to a code or value used in conjunction with an ideology.  What makes an ideology dogmatic? It’s all to do with the code not the ideology itself, many people, especially science minded people sadly enough, will look at the ideology itself being dogmatic instead of looking at the inflexibility of the code attached to such ideologies.  

Now the code itself refers to the program or a certain protocol which can be or not be dogmatic within a certain principle, no matter what ideological principle we take on, it’s totally influenced by this code.  What actually makes this code dogmatic, has it to do with the ideology itself or is it something else?

Dogmatism can and does exist in all ideological principles including science ideologies, many science minded people I have mentioned this too totally refuted such claims to the bitter end thus proving my point.  If anyone thinks their ideological principles are the be and end all, above all other principles, that is dogmatism.  Thinking that their principles can no way be dogmatic in any circumstance is a good indication of dogmatism however again it’s not the ideology that is being used that is dogmatic; it’s to do with the code used with such ideologies not the ideologies themselves.   

In a sense the code is a small program which influences another much larger program such as ideologies for instance; ideologies are just programs we have programmed our minds with which can be infected by a corrupted codes/virus which will make the reprogram/ideology  react quite differently, in this case it’s dogmatism, dogmatism is a virus in any ideology.

What creates such a code?  The belief or knowing that my ideology is more truthful and accurate than any other ideology, it’s the be and end all, in other words it’s our egotistical behaviour which makes up these codes to become dogmatic in the first place which influences such ideologies.

I posted the following interesting question to actual scientists, “If science today couldn’t prove that the earth is spherical that would have to mean the Earth isn’t spherical to a scientist even though it is?”  This was either not answered or it was answered in away without actually giving an answer too such a question.  The reason for this is it obviously points out flaws within certain science logics, the ego just didn’t want to know so the code attached to their science ideological principles clearly shows dogmatism and of course dogmatism refers to egotism.  You can’t be dogmatic without being egotistical as well, so what this is saying is codes, of any ideology, come from being egotistical. Like I have mentioned in recent past posts, egotism is a disease/virus that can influence us quite adversely giving us false impressions about our ideological principles.  

Now to a spiritually aware person all what I have written here is judgmental, I’m judging that ideologies themselves aren’t necessarily dogmatic  even though they seem to be, I’m judging that it’s the corrupted code or principle that can make an ideology seem dogmatic . I’m also judging that egotism is a disease/virus that corrupts our codes/principles. Also this judgment has to be bad in some way but how would anyone not into judgement judge that I am in judgment here unless they are in judgement themselves.

How would anyone know if anyone, including themselves, were in judgment unless they were in judgement themselves?  No one who is truly nonjudgmental can judge themselves or anyone else of being in judgement. If I was truly nonjudgmental myself I wouldn’t know if I was being judgmental or not because I wouldn’t judge so. 

Egotism, I have judged I’m not judgemental so I avoid judgment in myself as well as others when I can, how would any true nonjudgmental person judge when in or not in judgment?   This is egotism which leads to dogmatism which corrupts our ideological principals no matter what they are.