Showing posts with label Buddhism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buddhism. Show all posts

Sunday, 26 June 2016

Atheism (Buddhism) is Correct


Written by Mathew Naismith

Both the Western atheist view and Buddhist atheism is correct in that there is no divine energy source or God/God's, the reason for this isn't that simple to explain mainly because of the different perspectives we have of our environment/reality. Each view represents a filter (perception) that gives us a different perspective of what is and isn't, what these filters (perceptions) do, is give us a certain perspectives. However as of always, perspectives are a measurement or judgment of what is and isn't that are built upon specific perceptions (filters). However in saying this, atheism as a whole is also incorrect at the same time as I will also try to explain but first I will share an interaction I had with some interesting people. 

Reply

Any meaningful change is possible only through understanding or through insight. Any thing that involves practice will only lead to propaganda or conditioning.

My Reply
Well stated +Meda Raveendra Reddy Foundation, practice is motion, the more motion we create, the more we are conditioned. 

Insight on the other hand doesn't create motion, it creates awareness void of conditioning, this is wisdom. 

A lot of people think we have to gain knowledge to become wise, however, knowledge is motion which will only create conditioning void of wisdom. 

Wisdom actually comes from understanding and insights so you couldn't be more correct here. Wisdom is truth, knowledge is lies.....awareness actually replaces knowledge, that is why wisdom is of truth. 

This is my insight which may or may not be correct.


Reply
Mathew Naismith You are absolutely right:) People see security in practices and then become conditioned. Once they are conditioned, they will not be able to see things beyond conditioning.

Reply to:
Meda Raveendra Reddy Foundation We all have our filters that filter reality. Enlightenment is when we start to see the world clearly. 1st the darkness, then the beauty behind all of creation.

Following Reply
Michael Hopkins Absolutely true. The ability to see things with out filters is possible, when our thoughts are free from the self and all identifications:)

My Reply
Filters I think explains it quite well Michael, when you look through different sunglasses with different sun filter, we get a different perspectives of our environment, of course it's all a lie (illusion).We find this out when we take the sunglasses off, take the darkness from our vision. 

You cloud vision, you cloud insight and a true sense of awareness, all you are left with is knowledge that is filtered. We need knowledge but it's filtered at present which detracts from actual insights. 

I've actually got to explain why atheism (Buddhism) is correct in certain aspects, however, as isms are, they are all wearing sunglasses with different filters. 

Instead of sun filters, for us, it's ism filters that all give a different perspective. No ism is totally incorrect but no ism is totally correct either. Take the filters away and we would observe something quite amazing to say the least. 

So lads, in my mind, you are perfectly correct. -:)


Now why is atheism correct that there are no divine energy sources and God's/God?

A lot of spiritual views state quite clearly, there is only one, one consciousness, one source of creation, oneness as a whole, this is the teachings of oneness, not dividedness, non-duality, not duality. Now we might perceive here we are talking about a God of creation but where not, not in this perspective.

There is only oneness, like a oneness with God if you like. If consciousness is one with God, what would then define a God when all consciousness is of God? Consciousness then becomes this God which negates a perception of God. This is the same with any kind of divine energy, once consciousness becomes one with this energy, what then defines divine when all energies are of the same? To define any divine energy, you have to have an energy source that is not of this energy, basically, if there is nothing to compare this divine energy to, this energy can't be perceived as a divine energy without a comparison.

Often, anything not of this oneness, is defined as being an illusion which means the belief in any kind of divine energy is an illusion.         

HOWEVER

What have we actually done here to define that there is no divine energy, it's all an illusion? We have once again used a specific perspective, the perspective being that only oneness exists, everything else is an illusion. I know we have to use perspectives but as I stated before, perspectives define measurements/judgment, so often can a consciousness be deceived by a perspective, especially a specific perspective that is defined through a specific perception that there is only oneness, everything else is an illusion.

The question is now, is there only oneness?

As of all isms, there is some truth, the Holey Trinity is no different. Please bare with me if you have a problem with religion, it's not all a fallacy. I'm not religious myself but I'm not going to allow this one perspective perception to act as but another filter. The link below is certainly worth investigating in my mind. It's wise not to denounce all other perspectives over one!!

______________________



Extract: You and I live in a three-dimensional world. All physical objects have a certain height, width, and depth. One person can look like someone else, or behave like someone else, or even sound like someone else. But a person cannot actually be the same as another person. They are distinct individuals.

God, however, lives without the limitations of a three-dimensional universe. He is spirit. And he is infinitely more complex than we are.

That is why Jesus the Son can be different from the Father. And, yet the same.

______________________


God is this oneness, however, God is also trinity within us at the same time, this of course is going to seem like a paradox to us, how can we be of one and at the same time be of the other? The 3D reality has given us the perception that it has to be one or the other, point blank. This is the real illusion, especially when we consider that consciousness is infinite and is limitless within it's expressions. Why limit consciousness to being of oneness only, isn't this trying to limit an obvious limitless consciousness which infers a specific perspective being used to judged what is what? 

In relation to oneness, we have perceived it's got to be just oneness, nothing else. How do you limit a limitless consciousness but man in his wisdom, or lack of, has perceived their is only oneness thus limiting oneness to man's limited perspectives. Once we bring in perspectives, we bring in ideas that are limited.

Perspectives = limitations + judgment + finite + man's consciousness and perceptions
The realization of a God or God's consciousness, gave us the awareness that this oneness does indeed exist even though it's usually beyond most people's comprehension. What we seem to have done now is perceived that this oneness is limited when we are talking about a limitless infinite consciousness. Our own finite reality seems to have given us the perceptions that this infinite oneness is also limited, this has come from our own perspectives that this infinite consciousness has to also be limited to one or the other. Basically, be careful with perspectives, they often don't tell the whole truth, also, oneness also includes being, not of oneness, but of oneself as well, this is the true sense of oneness or the true sense of God if you like.

Atheism is correct in that their is no God but only if of God consciousness itself, which we are not and truly, never have been. Infinite = timelessness, this means this separation from this consciousness has always existed, however, at the same time we were never separated within this infinite consciousness, only in finite consciousness are we separated being that the finite is of time. Finite = time.

This is hard to get an idea of, we have never been separated but at the same time we have, why limit consciousness as having to have to be one or the other, only man's finite consciousness would do this. Of course being finite is limiting.

The holey trinity makes sense, we are of one but at the same time separate from one, this is the way it has always been but of course the tricky deceptive ego wants to believe otherwise. We didn't come from oneness for we are of oneness, this includes being separate from this oneness. We didn't come from anywhere, we have always been what we are, one with oneness but also separate from this oneness.

It's tricky to comprehend because we are conditioned to think in black and white, good and bad, negative and positive, measurements therefore perspectives brought on by a perception of one or the other, not either or both. A true sense of oneness includes all of the above, oneness and separation from oneness, not just oneness.

No ism tells the utter truth so no ism can be the be and end all, meaning, of utter truth. When isms proclaims this, I then know they are not of this truth but deceptions, for how could a consciousness influenced by the finite truly know of utter truth, it's impossible. Atheism is correct in one perspective but not in another, it will always be so. We were never separated from this oneness (God), which indicates their is no God, for we are then of this God. For a God to exist, their has to be a lesser consciousness compared to God, if we are one with God, where is this comparison to define what is or isn't a God?

However in a different perspective, this separation from oneness has also always been, we have always been separated. This separation gives a perception that oneness (God) exists. Both perspectives are correct but remembering, perspectives deceives one from the other but only if we chose one over the other. Oneness over separation, separation over oneness.

______________________

Malign Energy

I'm going to add a very simple meditative technique to this post for some reason, I call it vibrational meditation. You can do this anywhere, even in the most nosiest places, you can even do this standing up.

Don't try to do anything, don't even try to stop thinking in any sense, instead just be within the present and only the present and most importantly, don't meditate for a reason, just do it. Within this, we take ourselves away from the five sense and this is the key.

This technique will give you a sense of harmony and bliss, you will end up in a tranquil peaceful environment, this is what you focus on, harmony, bliss and tranquil peacefulness. These words within themselves, are conducive to moving away from the influences of our five senses.

One other thing to be aware of is that malign energy has no energy within itself, we ourselves give them this energy, this is likened to multinationals drawing energy out of the populous. The only reason these people have power, is wholly due to the populous giving them this energy to start with, without this energy, they are powerless. This meditative technique will assist in your own energies from being sucked from you. The reason for this is that malign energy can only use the five sense to draw it's energy from, once you put yourself into another environment other than of the five sense, this hinders malign energy being able to draw energy from you.


However, as people like me do, we humble ourselves to man, this means we don't always  protect ourselves from malign energy sources, this is our way.   

Sunday, 7 February 2016

Perceiving Beyond Philosophies and Ideologies


Written by Mathew Naismith

In recent days people into Buddhism have been telling me that Buddhism isn't a religion or an ideology, it's a path or a philosophy, however,  a God in no sense exists. To point out that God in any sense doesn't exist isn't philosophy, it's a fixated belief derived from a ideological view, this is because ideologies refer to a fixed sense of reasoning. Yes, this belief comes from a philosophical concept but it basically states a fixated view which denotes an ideological belief or view. 

Ideology = set views.

Philosophy = views that are not set. 

Just because an (ism) is based on philosophical beliefs and views, doesn't make it to be purely based on philosophy, most often ideological beliefs and views are incorporated within philosophy and Visa-versa. This integration of course is defined on the ism being followed and how it is followed. 

I wrote the following reply to a person who is obviously into Buddhism. 


 I think you will find that Buddhism is the awareness of ego and how the ego keeps us within lower dimensions of consciousness.

So I talk toooo much about ego in your mind, only because it influences everything we think and do. 

Very good point about respect, should not Buddhists also respect other ideological views and not put them down in anyway to obviously build upon their own ideology?   

https://www.quora.com/Is-Buddhism-a-religion-or-philosophy

"Buddhism doesn't fit neatly into either category of religion or philosophy. When people asked Buddha what he was teaching, he said he teaches "the way things are." He said nobody should believe his teachings out of faith, but instead they should examine for themselves to see if they are true or not." 

Ideologies refer to a fixed point of view, is not certain views an concepts of Buddhism fixed, there is no way a God exists for example?

Consciousness as a whole is not this limited, the absolute truth is that God does exist at the same time it doesn't, only an ego in control wouldn't be able to comprehend this. Any path, philosophy, ideology that states, this is it no matter what, is of a controlling ego as it's fixated to one point and one point only.

Let's consider Hinduism her, the philosophies and ideological vies of Buddhism fits within the philosophies and ideological vies of Hinduism, however,  the philosophies and ideological views of Hinduism don't fit within Buddhism. This alone infers that Hinduism is more about the whole collective self including ego, Hinduism doesn't exclude ego as it's part of our whole collective self. 

Consciousness itself has no limitation, so why limit ourselves within our philosophies and ideologies?  Once we limit ourselves to a set views or beliefs, our existence then also becomes set therefore limited. There is no way that consciousness itself has any kind of limitations. We so often limit ourselves to a particular philosophy and/or ideology when all philosophies and ideologies have merit and a worthiness  in some way. Everything around us tells us who we are, the belief in the existence of a God is but one, not one set of ideological principles or philosophies tell us about who we are as a whole in my mind.

If you wish to limit yourself to one set of ideological principles or philosophies, that is certainly up to you and there is absolutely nothing wrong in this, however, it's wise to become aware that consciousness as a whole has no such limitations when talking down, in any way,  other philosophical views and ideologies. Set yourself free of these controlling limitations, it's just not worth it. 

To put things into perspective I will share another reply I gave to a person into Buddhism         


I certainly understand this and I also understand that Buddhism can be more of philosophy than ideological views and beliefs. I also understand that Buddhism is also about just being.