Saturday, 2 July 2016
Written by Mathew Naismith
Like any other species, human consciousness itself can only comprehend to a certain point, any comprehension beyond this point isn't of human origin. As of any consciousness of any species, human consciousness has it's limitations, it's certainly not infinite within it's comprehension. It's these limitations that keep human consciousness locked up in certain scenarios (box's) thus creating a never ending recurring existence of war and desolation, in actuality, human consciousness is infinite within it's behaviour. It's a behaviour that just keeps on reoccurring, it's never ending, even after a consciousness has physically obliterated itself, it's still able to once again physically recreate the same scenario over and over again. In my mind, human consciousness is having a real hard time evolving into another species that is able to comprehend beyond what human consciousness is able to.
I should point out that human consciousness isn't physical, it's very much of a non-physical entity, in other words it doesn't die when the physical self dies.
Evolving Consciousness: Did the human collective consciousness truly comprehend what people like Jesus and Buddha tried to portray? Obviously not, if it did, we wouldn't be where we are today, playing out the same old scenarios over and over again.
Humans evolved from micro-organisms, it is quite comprehensible, to me, that humans are not the end of the chain of evolution, evolution doesn't stop at being human, it will go on but only if we are willing to evolve. Of course it's possible that not all human will evolve, there still micro-organisms and apes around, not all of a species will evolve, however, it's unlikely that humans, while cohabiting with a more consciously aware being, won't evolve. Basically, human consciousness will die out either by it's own hands or evolve while cohabiting with more aware conscious entities. However, any human consciousness that doesn't naturally evolve or cohabitate with more aware entities, will consciously stay human. This is neither right nor wrong, it just is, is it wrong for a micro-organism to stay as a micro-organism?
Malignant Consciousness: Human consciousness has experienced various influences from other forms of consciousness's, Jesus and Buddha are but a few of these more aware consciousness's, however, human consciousness has also been influenced by what I call malignant consciousness's as well. It's a cancer causing consciousness in a sense it influences a consciousness to become highly destructive, even to itself. Cancer isn't just a physical entity, it's also non-physical, in actuality, everything that is of the physical, has been created from the non-physical. You could look at people like Jesus and Buddha as being doctors/healers of malignant cancers, of consciousness's that are highly destructive, it's just we didn't take our medicine to avoid getting really ill, we just didn't listen and now human consciousness is riddled with malignant cancers.
Human consciousness is unable to, quite understandably, comprehend that everything that is physical, was created from non-physical consciousness. Human consciousness is so conditioned to physicality, even after the physical self dies, it still hangs onto it's physical self, ghosts are a good example of this. This makes the human physical self accessible to malignant non-physical consciousness's, being that anything primarily of the five senses, is a prime candidate for these malignant consciousness's to influence. The only thing that is able to stop this influence is the realisation that we are not just of these five senses. In actuality, if we could perceive our own existence void of the five senses, no amount of malignant consciousness would be able to influence us, it's this simple. To evolve, we need to realise we are not just these five senses.
Note: If you are not into souls, the following isn't going to be for you.
Souls: Some souls, at the soul level, are of physicality, the five senses, some aren't. The five sense are by far not just of physicality as of physicality isn't just of the physical, in actuality, human consciousness isn't very physical at all in the whole scheme of things. There are consciousness's that are far more of the five senses than we are but to us they seem to be non-physical. This kind of existence is too difficult to comprehend or put into words.
We have a huge mix of souls, within this reality, that are primarily of the five senses and souls that are primarily of the comprehension and conditioning beyond these five senses. Just like we have our own paths to follow in this life, we also have our own path to follow at the soul level, this means souls that are primarily of the five senses, are more likely to be influenced by malignant consciousness's. A consciousness that is influenced by malignant consciousness's, is naturally controlling, this being that the five senses are all about control. Any consciousness void of the control of the five senses, is unable to be controlling in any sense. It's the five senses that give consciousness the ability to control or the illusion of control!!
Why are so many people who are aware, are disheartened and uneasy about what is occurring in the world and other people are not? I find it quite interesting that we have a huge variety of souls within this one reality, it's not a real coexistence however, there is no real cohabiting between these quite different souls, this is primarily due to outside influence from other conscious entities. The more of the five sense we are of, the more susceptible we will be to malignant consciousness's, it's quite inevitable. It was inevitable that this kind of reality was going to be controlled by malignant consciousness's if we didn't listen to far more aware consciousness's, the game isn't over though for any consciousness not fooled into being just of the five senses.
Basically, the five senses are of the finite where's a comprehension beyond these five sense is of the infinite. Anything of the awareness of the infinite self, will prevail, anything not, will stay as a malignant consciousness's, a consciousness that is forever fixed to a never ending cycle of doom and gloom over and over again. Not all of us are meant to evolve from being of human consciousness, this is their path as we have ours.
In all, have faith within your infinite self......
Saturday, 25 June 2016
Written by Mathew Naismith
Sorry about this, there is a lot occurring at present, a lot of interaction so the posts just keep coming.
We tend to so often relate faith to religion or to any ideology that seems to have blind faith, nothing more. Yes, faith means to have strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny, but also, complete confidence in a person or plan or your own known abilities, also, loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person. I am myself loyal to my wife, I have faith that my wife holds the same values towards me. In a truly loving relationship, faith is the building block towards respect and loyalty, I certainly have faith in my wife to support me no matter what occurs.
Honestly, humanity itself couldn't function without faith, it's the building block towards a better understanding and respect for each other thus creating a more peaceful society on Earth. You could now ask is it the lack of faith towards each other that is causing so much trouble in the world or is it blind faith? When I vote for a politician who does and says all the right things, I begin to have faith, but when they get into office, they do the complete opposite. When this occurs, as it often does these days, it was obvious my faith was blind which was created from just having faith. This can indeed cause dissensions and an inability to have faith again in politicians sadly enough. The loss of faith is indeed adding to the world troubles, blind or not, in my mind.
Our own blind faith in our belief systems, philosophies and concepts can also add to the trouble in the world, my belief systems, philosophies or concepts are the be and end all, point blank. How many people have utter blind faith in science/atheism or a religion? We often think science will do the right thing by us but it often doesn't as of religion, however, we really shouldn't allow the failures of blind faith to deter us from having faith as this is only going to add to the worlds troubles. The lack of faith as well a blind faith are both adding to the troubles in the work it would seem, not one or the other but both.
Any belief systems, philosophies and concepts that deny any evidence that proves their own belief systems, philosophies and concepts are incorrect in some way, is a sign of utter blind faith, religion is a prime example but so is atheism believe it or not. If science categorically proved that God existed, atheists would have to deny this and disbelieve scientific findings to stay an atheist, the same is with religion, if science categorically proved that God doesn't exist, religious people would have to deny this and disbelieve scientific findings to stay religious, well not really.
Atheism is based on one concept/belief, the disbelief in God, so if God was scientifically proven to exist, which is doubtful that science is able to do in my mind, atheism would become null and void but religion wouldn't as religion is based on more than one belief/concept, however, the die hard religious people would obviously deny any scientific evidence as would die hard atheists. This of course denotes blind faith in both cases here. Really, does it really matter what we have faith in, as long as this faith has some kind of truth to it in some way for us in the present!!
The question is, should we truly lose faith if our own faith is proven incorrect?
We will lose faith in our faith but this doesn't mean we shouldn't have faith in other faiths, all this means is we are evolving instead of stagnating on a faith that is now known to be of blind faith. It's like having faith in a politician and then finding out that you had blind faith, we often move on to having faith in yet another politician which may or may not turn out to be blind. I think atheism and religion are both secure in there own faiths, if it turns out to be different in the future, we will move on to another faith, or should move on. It's not good holding onto a faith that is categorically known to be of blind faith, all this will do is add to the troubles in the world, both atheism and religion are not categorically proven to be incorrect, one of course states the other is for one reason or another, this is inevitable.
The funny thing is, both religion an science/atheism evolved primarily from mysticism and philosophy, will both religion and science/atheism stay as they are today in the future? Most unlikely, so what is all the fuss about, really!! Science even today is evolving from basic science to physics now quantum physics, vacuum physics and quantum mechanics. I can also see, to some extent, that religion is also changing, some religions are even based on science in some way these days. Basically, I don't think it's wise hanging onto what we will evolve from, could you imagine if we hung onto mysticism and philosophy thus negating everything else that evolves from this. Newtonian's thought that Isaac Newtons concepts where the be an end all, the same with Albert Einstein which a lot of he's concepts are now being questioned today, we are simply meant to evolve from faith to faith, concept to concept and so on.
I was an atheist, then I turned agnostic because I personally found faults within the concepts of atheism and the same with agnosticism latter on but now, I have no labels to express what I am, really, do I have to have a label to describe myself and what I have faith in? Basically, I have faith in faith to evolve to yet have faith once again.......
In my next post I will explain why atheism (Buddhism) is correct in certain respects, in actuality, in some major respects in regards to certain aspects.
Thursday, 31 March 2016
Written by Mathew Naismith
In realities influenced by time, it seems to matter what is what, what are we doing here, what is our purpose, what is the difference and so forth. Any consciousness influenced by timelessness however has a different perspective, this is usually called blind faith, for example, a consciousness that believes in a creative consciousness or God or an infinite source of creation/awareness/wisdom, naturally has a different perspective to other conscious forms that don't have an expression of faith. The reason for this lies with faith itself, considering that the faith in anything infinite, naturally defuses numerous questions thus helping in quieting our minds.
Having faith in anything within time, is a big ask considering that purely time based perception are unable to perceive beyond finite perceptions, this of course is due to their conditioning to time. Faith however takes us out of time based perceptions and perspectives thus lessening the continuous questions of what is what, in turn, quieting our minds.
In relation to time, certain quantum physics theories state that realities and time are possibly an illusion for various reasons as the video below explains. To me, their not just illusions and that is that, this sounds like a perception base purely on time because perceptions influenced by time usually set up boundaries and rules, what boundaries and rules are there in timelessness? There are none because to have limitation is of the finite, not the infinite.
Perceiving from a state influenced by time to a timeless state, gives us the perception that time is an illusion, this of course is also stating that hate and love are an illusion as well. However, when you perceive from a timeless state to state of time, your perception is quite different. The reason for this is obvious, there are no limitations, once a consciousness is no longer only influenced by time, the limited question of what is what becomes obsolete as this kind of questioning and querying has limitations.
Because there are no limitations, this alone should prove that time is an illusion as time is very limiting? Not at all, remember, there are no limitations, meaning, time within itself is real, to state otherwise is limiting!! Time, therefore finite thinking, tricks us to believe in illusions, basically, it's an illusion of an illusion....however.
To state that time isn't an illusion, is also limiting, time has certainly obscured who we truly are to start with, giving us the misperception that this is all we are, this is an illusion. One of the main reasons time isn't an illusion resides in that times has always existed, if time exists, time can't be a true illusion, only the perception that time influences us with. The main influence being a perception of finite as opposed to the infinite.
As of always in time, what has evolved from what? This kind of querying is of course perceived on the perception that time exists and that there is always a starting and ending point of origin. This perception of course denotes a perception influenced by limitations therefore time. In recent days, I had a theory that denotes that consciousness and thought was created from awareness, the following is my response to this.
Good point, is consciousness and thought the creation of awareness instead of awareness and thought being the creation of consciousness? In time, one would presume one comes before the other, in timelessness however there is no starting or ending point for one to be created from the other...
Basically, I'm stating that consciousness is awareness and thought, however for an example, not every state of thought, awareness and consciousness, is wise as thought and consciousness can lack awareness which is fundamentally vital for wisdom to exist.
We would think that to be wise, wisdom is created because of awareness, in actuality, wisdom is at the exact same point as awareness, wisdom doesn't come from awareness as thought and consciousness doesn't come from awareness.
Because we are conditioned to time, we perceive everything has to have a starting point of origin but it doesn't, yes, in time it does, this is the illusion, but not when we consider timelessness as well.
In time, consciousness and thought can be perceived as coming from awareness, however in timelessness, this is another matter. there are no boundaries therefore their are no rules to what should come before or be created by what....
As of the big picture, there is no boundaries, this means no consciousness or awareness is able to actually observe the whole picture as it has no boundaries, it's infinite, we can however perceive the enormity of the big picture.
I should also state that most human isms and ideologies are time based or influenced in some way by time.
To me, it's important to have faith as faith is of the infinite self, it has no fixated limitations, on the other hand disbelief has numerous fixated limitations. We do indeed have a choice in what perceptions we live by..........
Saturday, 22 February 2014
Written by Mathew Naismith
“Yes, what we know we know but do we know what we know without question? If not we really never knew in the first place, it was just an assumption of us knowing!!”
I wrote this quote up out of the blue without a post in mind which isn’t usual for me. It seems like a simple quotation, if we are no longer questioning it’s not an assumption however when I inserted this in the thinkers Google community I got a funny reaction to it. It was read like this, “but do we know what we know without questioning? It was elaborated by saying breathing, going by the quote, is an assumption. Yes, if we read it as, “but do we know what we know without questioning”, I can see where the misconception was. In this case the quote would be referring to all questioning being an assumption, I found this interesting!!
The quote of course is relating to, if we are no longer questioning it’s not an assumption as breathing is no longer an assumption because we know why & how it works through questioning. It comes down to this, if we are still questioning are we still assuming, thinking too much?
The human mind is all about knowing, it can’t function without input/knowing so if it’s still questioning it’s still assuming however faith works the other way around funny enough. We know without question is saying anyone with faith isn’t assuming anything unless they question such faith, in this case it becomes but another assumption. Because some people were thinking too much on the thinkers Google community they made an incorrect assumption to what the quote was referring to. Thinking is obviously of assumptions so when we lesson the thinking processes we are of course going to lower the chances of assuming too much.
Now to a person who only logically thinks this doesn’t make sense, faith is of assumptions because faith is hard or impossible to prove so if you can’t prove a faith it’s only an assumption obviously. How about if we looked at this in another way. Science today, through all it’s questioning, is still trying to find out how the universe was created, it’s still all theory, theory denotes questioning & of course assumptions. Going by the quote, all questioning is based on assumptions until we know like with breathing, once we know it’s no longer an assumption. We once didn’t know how & why we breathed until we asked the appropriate questions to such things. Faith doesn’t need to ask such questions in the first place mainly because it doesn’t use the mind to reason; faith isn’t of assumptions like science for instance.
When we ask questions within any faith we are always assuming like in science & like science once we have had these questions answered we are no longer assuming. There is absolutely nothing wrong with assuming unless we think too much, once we start doing this we will more often than not make wrong assumptions.
Meditation, praying, chanting & even singing lessons the thinking process by focusing on one or two thought processes, we are at this stage thinking less or not at all especially when we are in the zone. While we are thinking less we are asking less questions, which going by the quote, lessons the chances of us assuming too much.
Would have we advanced the way we did without questioning thus assuming? No I don’t think we wouldn’t have advanced the way we have without questioning so would have we advanced in a different way? Instead of advancing through thinking & knowing could have we advanced in a different way which would have obviously given us a different outcome? Some people of faith know the answer therefore are no longer assuming but others still asking questions are obviously still assuming like questioning thus assuming faith is of assumptions itself!!
To end this post I’ve inserted one of my replies to the thinkers Google community.
Questioning is of assumptions until we find the answer & then it's no longer an assumption. Strangely enough faith isn't of assumptions because it doesn't question especially if it's blind!! We assumed faith was built upon by assumptions because we questioned faith, once you start questioning you are making assumptions. What I am saying, there is nothing wrong with assuming for in this lies the answers.
Thursday, 15 August 2013
Written by Mathew Naismith
I thought I would share a few comments from a post titled Faith, Mysticism & Philosophy to Science from Google community.
I don't think an atheist would have just flat-out reject fire. I believe that one such man/woman would simply conclude that he/she has no way of explaining the phenomenon.
Now, something that is a very common theme in all of humanity is our inward instinct to want to know everything. Our brain, by its nature, doesn't like not knowing everything. If we can't deduce a plausible solution, we make one up.
Besides, as a caveman/woman, I would just be thankful that the fire existed, because our ability to control fire is what led us to become what we are today.
So what's the difference between fire & God or faith? Atheists don't accept there being a God so with the same logic they wouldn't accept fire either, they couldn't if they used the same logical thinking process, it's logically impossible.
What they did use was faith, faith within the fire without being able to logically understand how it was & how it worked so what's the difference between that & a God or faith of today?
I'm a spiritually aware agnostic if I was going to give what I believe a label which makes me a little more open minded to different perceptions than most atheists so I can open my mind up to more possibilities than a closed minded atheists obviously.
Logic points to people creating religion to explain what they don't understand. I don't see how an atheist caveman's reaction to fire has any connection. I'm sure the caveman(atheist or theist) would think fire was magic and would keep a cautious distance. Maybe they might think it's a message from a higher life form. Again, logic points to magic being the answer when the answer is unclear. Some of us will reserve judgement until more facts are in... Others will blindly cling to the first answer they hear.
We don't understand the human brain to it's fullest extent but that's not of religion & neither is the universe because we can't even agree in how it was first created & what about everything else we don't understand about it.
If we used the same logical deductive reasoning that atheists use today that we have with God or faith the cave man fire wouldn't exist but it does obviously because we can see it but an atheists couldn't accept this because it's not of any logic within their awareness or knowing. This same concept is used to formulate an idea that God can't exist or that faith is delusional today.
God or what I call consciousness collectively or not is like the fire, it exists because we exist, in other words we are proof of a creative consciousness or God exists, just because we can't logically give it definition yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
A thousand years ago there was no way we could ever take flight because that was logically impossible at the time. Logic changes with our conscious awareness however some logic like atheist logic hasn't by the looks of it. If it's not logical at the time it can never exist, strange atheist concepts I have to admit however the concepts of agnosticism are quite different.
Written by Mathew Naismith
I’ve been having quite an interesting discussion with an atheist lately in how hypocritical atheism can be depending on the dogmatic attitude of some atheists & how it is also of a belief but mostly how flawed the beliefs/concepts/theories or whatever you want to call them are. Some atheists think if it isn’t of logic it can’t be proved so it can’t have happened or it was a delusion of some kind. Where did logical thinking & science derive from? Faith, mysticism & philosophy, this is the way we were thinking before logic & science thought became thought but we still evolved from living in caves & foraging for food, how did we evolve without logic at first?
Below is part of my reply to an atheist that can’t or won’t see that the beliefs of atheism are flawed & in fact they think they aren’t beliefs at all but if you can’t prove something without a doubt it’s not fact so if it’s not fact it must be of a belief, no one can prove or disprove God doesn’t exist, this is a funny argument coming from a spiritually aware agnostic as myself.
I experienced from quite a young age phenomena that science can’t logically explain as yet but it doesn’t make it delusional or unreal Paul just because science can’t logically prove something, this is small minded thinking. A thousand yrs ago people knew it was impossible for humans to ever gain flight or that we would ever have motorised vehicles, just because it wasn’t logical back then doesn’t make it illogical period Paul, this is a lame way of thinking Paul & thank God we have foresighted thinkers because if we all thought like atheists back in the cave man days that is exactly where we would still be obviously because nothing could be proven logically back then especially by science there for we wouldn’t have evolve through lack of logical proof. This way of thinking that everything has to be logically proved before implemented Paul is utterly flawed!!
How did we evolve from the caves without logic Paul? It was through faith & eventually science was formed from faith, philosophy & mysticism, now this is fact Paul as this actually happened & without logic.
You obviously haven’t experienced any genuine spiritual phenomena Paul that can’t be explained as yet by science but most of us here have, it doesn’t make us wrong or delusional like you keep trying to say. Just because it’s scientifically illogical doesn’t make it delusional or unreal Paul it just makes it unprovable at this point in time to people who only think logically. Most of us here think outside the logic square which to me denotes foresighted thinking.
If we were all born atheists & had the thinking capability of an atheist back in the cave man days would have we accepted fire? We couldn’t because we had no logical understanding or awareness in how fire existed. I could see an atheist just putting out the fire because there was no logical proof of its existence & this is no different with the existence of God or a creative consciousness. The argument would be of course from an atheist is, “we can see the fire exists but we can’t of a God &/or consciousness”, what are we & of all of creation, we are God &/or consciousness. Just like the fire it exists & just like the fire in the cave man days it still exists without logical proof for the main reason we can neither logically prove nor disprove such things just like fire in the cave man days so yes I can see atheists back then putting out the fire.
All I can say is thank god our ancestors back then didn’t think like some of us do today, we would have never evolved & this is why the beliefs of atheism is flawed, it can’t possibly exist without logic. We didn’t have the logical understanding of such things back then but we did have faith & from faith mysticism & philosophy evolved & from faith, mysticism & philosophy science was created & evolved so really we have a lot to thank faith for. So the big question here is, since we have evolved from cave man days of faith to logical thinking do we need faith any longer? Logic gives us one thought perception or mode of thought but faith gives us another which of course proved handy in our evolutional thought process & perception for without faith we obviously wouldn’t have evolved & I don’t think it’s any different today.
The related link is shown below: