Showing posts with label consciousness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consciousness. Show all posts

Sunday 19 June 2016

God's Consciousness and Masochism



Written by Mathew Naismith

I will start this post off with a reply I gave in relation to my post titled, Why Be Fooled Into Masochism. This post certainly stirred up emotions in various people, however, not all the emotions expressed where against what I wrote, in fact quite the opposite as I will also present. 
________________________

"My issue was with the idea that if you chose to make a safe haven for yourself them it was implied that you were a masochist. "

Not at all, I never implied this, I did however state that people who often create a safe haven for themselves, can become Masochists unbeknownst to them, not that they are masochists.

I think people read into what they want to read in regards to this post, not what was actually written for various reasons. Once our emotions are stirred, we often perceive things in a bias or prejudged way, this is well known in psychology to occur to all of us at one time or another.

Recently , I sent a twitter to our prime minister about a certain issue, and not to long ago I approached our local federal member on another issue. If more people did this, the better off we all would be.

However, praying and meditating helps, especially ourselves because we then think we are doing something worthy, it keeps us uplifted. If more of us could only balance out this with actual actions, the world would be a far better place to live.

The answer is react but not in opposition to as my post states, as soon as we act in opposition, even to pray, we create a reaction. Praying and meditation is good, I hope people keep it up but in opposition to this is a much more aggressive energy counteracting any prayer or meditation. 

You may not agree, we need to all stop reacting to each other in opposition, if the world did this, we would instantly have peace on earth.

Why is God allowing all this to happen, or more precisely, why are we allowing it to happen?

God didn't create everything, God didn't create wars, famine or our destructive ways, we did. God is not controlling, we have been created to express ourselves at will without any limitans (infinite), this also means to create in our own right. being that God isn't controlling, would this God's consciousness kill off what we have created? No, but he has sent various messengers to guide us to create a much more constructive environment.

How long would Jesus or Buddha, for example, last in our present environment, they would killed them off immediately. instead what's in place of Buddha and Jesus? The people who behold the consciousness of Buddha and Jesus within themselves. The 144,000 people will represent this consciousness but these people, in my mind, need to be aware of being fooled into masochism as much as possible.

In Australia, terrible things happen, floods and fires some one of them. every time this occurs, I feel for the people involved and then I feel even more for the people around the world who suffer even more day in day out.

This is only my perception Marsa, I could be terribly wrong but that is the way I feel at present.

Much Blessings,
Mathew
________________________

The following is a representation of a more favourable response to this post, plus, I also inserted my reply to this email reply.

________________________
             
Holy Wow,  You are a very intelligent and enlightened person.  Your writing is amazing!

The fear section really resonated with me, because of my faith growing stronger by the day, I’m able to confidently fight the enemy that tries to attack my thoughts. 
(I think of it, like I strap on the armour of God each day, a covering/protection not seen by the eyes, but felt across my soul and heart) woah, that’s a bit deep even for me....hehe.

I do however, have a healthy fear of the Lord himself. My idea of a personal relationship with God is having a balance of faith and fear, because I still have to be accountable for my actions, I can’t get complacent and think “oh God forgives”, because he also likes to teach us lessons which are sometimes very harsh.  To me he is like my parent disciplining me throughout my life and even at 42 getting a slap over the wrist at times.  Hope that makes sense about the healthy fear, I know you will understand but a lot would think that those two words conflict each other.

Well I think you are positively amazing with your writing and your thoughts, well done!

My Reply:
Kim, I'm neither intelligent nor enlightened, aware yes.

Unlike a lot of new age spirituality teaches, fear is a healthy trait to have, fear teaches us so much and informs us of our ways when we go astray or before we go astray, fear is of awareness. 

Fear and God go very well together, as you seem to be stating, we need to fear to stay on track, this is awareness for only the ignorant have no fear of God. This kind of fear isn't based on fear alone, it's based on awareness, an awareness to build upon a more constructive reality. Fear alone denotes a consciousnesses that is highly destructive, quite a difference but not many people see it this way sadly enough. 

I'm not a strict Jesus and God person but I understand and appreciate what has been given to me. 

Much Blessings,
Mathew

________________________

     
The consciousness of God isn't about fear as in fearing, it's about wisdom to be aware that certain actions will entail creating situation or realities that aren't constructive or wise to do, unless this is what our intentions are. This is why I have in previous posts referred to this God's consciousness as pure wisdom, basically, this is where all wisdom stems from. In actuality, the fear comes from us, not from this God's consciousness directly, its' the God's consciousness within us that gives us this fear for we know deep down that we are indeed creating something that will hurt us all in the end. Basically, it's our inner self that is telling us to fear of what our actions will create, this inner self being of God's consciousness.

You can either take fear as something to run from, therefore, stay unaware or ignorant to what this fear is telling us, or,  face the fear face on and learn the wisdom this fear is trying to tell you. I know a lot of spiritual practices tell us to fear fearing and to judge what is and isn't fear, I think within myself, this is highly counterproductive. The reason why such teachings are counterproductive is simple, once we judge what is what,  we instantly react in opposition to anything we have judged as negative or bad, one action instantly cancels out the other.

Using fear on it's own, is always going to lead to an opposing reality resulting in conflict and masochism of various kinds. Running away from fear because we have judged fear as being plainly bad or negative, is a person being fooled into masochism. Take wisdom of fear out of our lives, all you are left with is fear void of any wisdom what so ever. What have we done in the world? Exactly this........well, in my mind anyway.


Note: The consciousness of God refers to the creative source of everything, a creative source of all creation and not an image of a man in a white robe.   

Saturday 18 June 2016

Does Consciousness Exist Outside the Brain?


written by Mathew Naismith

The following discussion is long and tedious and at times bitter but what the outcome of this discussion produces, is amazing to say the least. The discussion is based on my last post, "Putting Consciousness Into Perspective", but is primarily to do with consciousness being able to exist outside of the human brain. Also, some of the links I supplied might be of interest to some people.

Please bare with me, I have to prompt some people in opposition to my ideas at times to get the truth out in the open, I'm not interested in untruths. Prompting means to incite a discussion that tells of the opposing parties true intentions. I'm very good at this and it does take me to be tough on a person at times, basically, tough love. I wouldn't call this a pleasant discussion by far but at times we need to put up with the unpleasantries to get to what is pleasant for us, the world the way it is, is a good indication of this.            
       

Reply
Consciousness is not "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge", though knowledge may be acquired while conscious.

There is no "physical consciousness". Consciousness is a pattern within, or functioning of, a physical brain.

Consciousness is not "the act of acquiring awareness". That is the act of becoming conscious itself.

"The mental aspect is the same in the physical as it is of the non-physical, the only difference is, the physical existence needs a brain to process these mental actions and processes, the non-physical doesn't need a brain, it works with the mind"
No, consciousness is the functioning of a physical brain. There is no "non-physical" consciousness that does not need a brain.

A brain is still a brain without a mind. It just isn't functioning. But a mind is not a mind without a brain.

Consciousness is not a "non-physical entity". It is not an entity at all. it is a state of a mind.

Let's put this simply, without any "woo"...
The mind is the functioning of a brain.
Consciousness is an emergent property of a complex brain.
Easy-peasy. Nothing mysterious about it.


My Reply
There are a number of dictionary interpretations that say otherwise Bruce, but all these kinds of interpretation denote is a physical perspective over and above a non-physical perspective. 

"A brain is still a brain without a mind. It just isn't functioning. But a mind is not a mind without a brain."

So how do ghosts/spirits interact in a physical existence when they don't themselves have a physical brain? The only way you could answer this is state that ghosts don't exist when they obviously do. Science studies have proven that the mind exists outside the body. 

You put the physical before the non-physical therefore you will never be able to comprehend what I am talking about, you have proven the points I made in the post Bruce. 

Your in a box and this box is labeled physical, that is all you can perceive because you are in this box, easy-peasy, nothing complicated about this. 

People like myself are out of that box you labeled physical, therefore, we our perspectives and perception are much broader than the box labeled physical.

Bruce, in a million years you will never WANT to see this will you? If you are happy existing in your box, that's good as I am happy existing outside your box labeled physical.


What, stating facts instead of fiction Bruce. It is well known in psychology that we do indeed put ourselves within a box and this is where we perceive from, of course the box gives us a bias perspective as you have quite clearly displayed here Bruce. There is a much bigger world outside the box Bruce.......

Reply
You stated fiction, not facts. Fantasy, not reality.
I stated facts. I described both mind and consciousness in simple terms. Both of my descriptions are empirically supported. Yours are not.

It is well known in psychology that we do indeed put ourselves within a box and this is where we perceive from
So what?

of course the box gives us a bias perspective as you have quite clearly displayed here Bruce
You've yet to demonstrate that. All you've demonstrated is that you can't defend your ideas.

There is a much bigger world outside the box Bruce.
I'm glad you've noticed. Why don't you come out and play with all the rational intelligent people?




My Reply
The dictionary interpretations I read contradict your own for starters. So according to you, dictionaries are fictional......!!! 

Through a number of science experiments conducted, they have concluded that the mind does indeed exist outside of the body but there is no way you will comprehend this Bruce, this is inevitable as no doubt you will prove. Can you now see the box you are trying to perceive the rest of existence through? 

Anyone for starters who clearly states that dictionary's are fictional, are certainly existing in a box Bruce.


Reply
Please provide a link to the "dictionary definitions" you used.
I just think your dictionaries are fictional.

Through a number of science experiments conducted, they have concluded that the mind does indeed exist outside of the body
No, they have not. Now you are just flat-out lying.

Are you ever going to get around to defending your ideas? I'm getting tired of waiting. One might almost conclude that you cannot....


...and I see you've spammed this to a dozen different communities. What a dick move.

My Reply
Word web, consciousness: An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation

Being that consciousness is obviously cognitive, cognitive interpretation is as follow, " The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses." 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cognition

Now I know for a fact you will screw this around but consciousness is being cognitive, this is a fact Bruce. 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consciousness

"The state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings: " 

I think a cognition relates to being aware would you not? You made the mistake in not thinking in terms of cognitive did you not Bruce? Big mistake.......Consciousness, an alert cognitive state, so what you are saying is consciousness isn't a cognitive state, obviously? 

Now for my evidence of the mind being able to exist outside of the physical brain.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiPkKX_ha7NAhUGJKYKHSF7B-8QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukapologetics.net%2F07%2Fmindandbody.htm&usg=AFQjCNF_gczwScwjo4FjTlX0No-2eLj5Fw&sig2=x5kSYKZVlQ9K1uSAjq2Cag

http://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-theory-proves-that-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03/brain-create-consciousness.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

http://www.oddee.com/item_98822.aspx

http://humansarefree.com/2015/07/scientific-proof-of-reincarnation-yes.html

So if I'm lying and unintelligent, unlike yourself of course, all these far more intelligent people than you are also lying according to your obvious bias perception? You have once again proven that you do indeed exist in a box labelled physical. 

In a million years my friend, you will not concede you are wrong in any sense, this will be obvious in your replies. Get out of your box Bruce, it's making you look awfully stupid my friend.

By the way, I can, in time, produce future links to state how much of a liar I'm not and how ignorant you are if you like.



Further proof that souls exist which means so does the mind outside of the body. 

http://consciouslifenews.com/scientist-photographs-soul-leaving-body/1165924/

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/quantum-scientists-offer-proof-soul-exists/story-fneszs56-1226507452687

Extract: A PAIR of world-renowned quantum scientists say they can prove the existence of the soul.

http://www.strangenotions.com/seven-proofs-for-the-natural-immortality-of-the-human-soul/

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/10/29/science-now-proves-reincarnation-a-look-at-the-souls-journey-after-death/

Of course all these people are far more unintelligent than Bruce, he will obviously tell us so. I think these people are no doubt far better educated than Bruce but Bruce is still more intelligent according to Bruce. That bias perception giving a bias perspective again caused by existing in a box, will these people ever wake up from out of the illusion? We better hope they do one day.... 


I will in time produce more info and links to many more people who are liars and far less intelligent than Bruce even though Bruce isn't even a scientist, it would seem, or quantum physicist. The box can certainly delude us.


Reply
"Word web, consciousness: An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation"
...which is not how you defined it in your post. As I pointed out in my first reply.

"Now I know for a fact you will screw this around but consciousness is being cognitive"
Nope.
Consciousness is cognitive.
Learning is cognitive.
That does not mean that Consciousness is learning. That's a logical fallacy.

Consciousness is the state of being aware.
Cognition is the state of learning.
Learn the definitions of the words you use.

"Now for my evidence of the mind being able to exist outside of the physical brain."
Peer-reviewed research, please. And present your argument. I don't debate with links. Demonstrate you understand what they are saying.

"So if I'm lying and unintelligent, unlike yourself of course"
I'm more honest than you, and far smarter.

I await your peer-reviewed research demonstrating mind/body dualism...

My Reply
It would seem we are going to continue is this charade.

Try to be conscious without being cognitive, you're actually saying a consciousness can. Consciousness is being cognitive. It is also obvious you didn't know this because you should have mentioned it earlier but you didn't. 

What I explained what consciousness is, is correct because I didn't say the definition of consciousness did I, I only stated consciousness did I not? Your not very observant Bruce, that bloody box again!! 

By the way, there is a big difference between definition and interpretation but of course you don't know this either it would seem. Get out of that box Bruce...

So being aware through being conscious isn't learning through being aware!! 

"I'm more honest than you, and far smarter'.

So calling people names is a sign of intelligence Bruce, I don't think so especially when that name calling isn't backed up with evidence as I have produced. 

"I await your peer-reviewed research demonstrating mind/body dualism..."

So on all the info I supplied from far more intelligent people than you or I, even if you don't think so, this is your reply, your kidding me aren't you.......!! 

Because you are far smarter than I, you demonstrate that you know what they are stating. I think my post certainly demonstrates that I know what they are stating but you won't ever have this will you?

Bruce, give us sound evidence that I lied, good luck on this because I have already proven otherwise haven't I? But not to anyone in a box.... 

Bruce, it's not a good idea confronting people like myself like you have here, all you have proven is how bias and unobservant you are as of anyone stuck in a box would be. 

You absolutely have no idea what I am talking about Bruce which again proves my point about the box. You have proven how unobservant you are as you have proven how observant I am and that my friend is a fact. You of course won't see this either sadly enough

Interpretation: A mental representation of the meaning or significance of something 

Definition: A concise explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase or symbol 

There is a huge difference in their meaning. I stand by my explanation, cognitive represents consciousness as consciousness is represented by a cognitive factor. 

Once again, give us evidence I lied Bruce, at least give us this.....


Reply from another member

Play nice everyone ;)
I personally find your different perspectives very interesting and thank you both for engaging.


My Reply
 Everyone's perspectives are interesting but I don't think Bruce thinks this, I suppose that's why he stooped to name calling. 

What's interesting is that one of us is calling the other person names when replying to them, while the other person has always used the persons actual name when in reply. 

I think my physical pain is getting to me, too much typing in a short time space which makes the discussion even more interesting.

I might have to apologise to Bruce, I have been a little rough on him but it has been interesting, it confirms my perceptions and perspectives in a number of different ways unbeknownst to Bruce.

It's very interesting what that box has created, this is the illusion being that all we are is this box.


Reply from another member
I'm really just learning about all this, but I'm always ready to hear arguments on any side. 

I will reiterate to you both, though, to please be civil where you attack the contention, not the person.

My Reply
You and me both otherwise I wouldn't bother acknowledging Bruce. 

I should ease up on Bruce, I've prompted him way too many times but it's been interesting all the same.


My follow up reply
The following is an interesting read on why attributing consciousness to the physical brain is absurd. 

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/one-page-proof-that-attributing-consciousness-to-the-brain-is-absurd/

Extract: Consider this an open letter to philosophers, brain researchers, physicists, technocrats, Ray Kurzweil, and TED executives who censored lectures on consciousness by Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake.

Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies. According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious. The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does. End of story. End of proof. You’re welcome. Of course, a few scientists will argue (and many more will privately believe) that, since we humans ARE conscious, this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation? Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove. Any first-semester logic student would mark that argument INVALID. Some scientists, suddenly invoking a brand of mysticism they otherwise deplore, claim the unique complex configuration of particles called the brain somehow—in this one case—has a capacity to break every rule in the book and deliver consciousness. But no proof, just faith. Supposition.
­_________________________

To me, to take a solid unwithering stand that consciousness can't possibility ever exist outside the brain, is an indication of utter blind faith, a consciousness entrapped in a box of dogmatic beliefs and concepts based purely on bias. Consider this, how would a consciousness entrapped in a box behave otherwise but bias and bias to the extreme. This sounds awfully like I'm talking about an extremist religious ideology but I'm not, I'm speaking of the bias and extremism of science........

I however don't exactly agree in the statement that certain physicists state that consciousness is in rocks, trees and so forth, I once read that these physicists state that everything has a form or kind of consciousness, meaning, not everything has a consciousness like humans for example but I could be incorrect in this. Basically, this article supports my scientifically supported suppositions and conjectures in regards to my post.
_________________________

The discussion is continuing which in my mind isn't worth mentioning, the following is my last sensible reply in regards to this discussion.

_________________________

This is interesting, our discussion has been primarily on the physical aspects of consciousness, basically, a consciousness that is cognitive, cognition being "The psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning" (Word Web).

In my post, I had a different interpretation of non-physical consciousness than of cognition for a very good reason, that reason being that not all non-physical consciousness is cognitive for the pure fact such consciousness isn't psychologically represented. I'm not about to go into this to why this is so on here.

What I am stating also is that awareness, which obviously takes a consciousness of some kind, is of learning, even when the physical conscious mind is unaware, the physical, and most likely non-physical, unconsciousness is aware. So while we are asleep, unconscious, we are not suppose to be aware and learning? This seems to be what is being stated by certain people here, even when we are physically unconscious, we are still learning because we are still aware be it in a different format. Has anyone heard of sleep learning to begin with?

Another point to make here is the way we analyse, if I was to totally pull apart a human body and totally segregate each part from the other, would we still call these segregated parts a human as opposed of being of a human. It's no longer a human especially when we segregate it, it's of parts of a human.

What some people are doing here in this discussion is the same, segregate everything and only mention what they want to acknowledge and still call it a holistic analysis. Not once has anyone of the opposing view to mine analysed the info I have given holistically. Certain people within science and spiritualty do the same if they want or desire a certain outcome other than what the holistic approach will produce/create. This is well known in the circles of psychology and quantum physics to occur. 

I could pull apart any fact and turn it into fiction, this is fact, the question is, would I be deceptive in doing so? Obviously......How often is factual life turned into fiction and of course visa-versa? This is one reason people like me can see through blatant deception  which is usually created by a consciousness being bias while stuck in a box.

My box analogy is certainly being proven here.


 Extract:Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. 



Where is the physical brain when two subatomic particles can communicate with each other over a long distance? Communication takes consciousness because one consciousness has to be aware of another consciousness to be able to communicate, in other words, self-awareness. This of course won't make any difference to a bias consciousness, this is going to be evident.  
________________________

Human consciousness has always evolved, just because we think we have found the right box, were not allowing human consciousness to evolve any further!! As human history quite plainly shows, there is no right box, only evolution......we are meant to evolve even if that means evolving into an entirely different species or entities.


I again apologise for the length and disposition displayed in this post.......      

Friday 17 June 2016

Putting Consciousness Into Perspective



Written by Mathew Naismith

Consciousness; the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. This interpretation refers more to the physical consciousness than non-physical. The non-physical interpretation would be something more like the following, " The mental (mind) action or process of acquiring awareness through comprehension, observation and all the senses".

The mental aspect is the same in the physical as it is of the non-physical, the only difference is, the physical existence needs a brain to process these mental actions and processes,  the non-physical doesn't need a brain, it works with the mind. Being aware that the brain is nothing without the mind, the minds actions and processes are non-physical until the brain expresses the minds actions and processes, this has given us the perception that the mind is also physical but it's not. Everything we create comes from a non-physical source of energy, the mind is a non-physical entity even though we use a physical form, the brain, to process the mind. Only through a physical form are we able to measure the mind and know of it's existence within a physical existence, this is quite different in a non-physical existence where there is no need to measure anything to know of it's existence, consciousness in a non-physical entity and is automatically aware of the minds existence.

Now we might also think that the mind dies with the brain when the physical self dies, once the physical brain is dead, so is the mind. Being that the mind isn't physical to start with until expressed through a physical brain, it's very unlikely that the mind dies with the brain. There are of course various science experiments that support this analogy. The mind existed before and after brains are formed, reincarnation is good example of this. Science once again has proven, to some extent, that reincarnation could possibly be a real phenomena. So it's obvious that the mind, therefore consciousness, exists as a non-physical entity, in actuality, consciousness, therefore the mind, is probably more of a non-physical entity than a physical one. Basically, consciousness is non-physical until it's expressed through a physical brain, however, not all that is expressed physically is expressed through a physical brain. This of course further refers that the mind doesn't need the brain to express itself in a physical way. 

It would seem that consciousness can exist without a physical form to process and inturn turn these processes into actions, physical form, in actuality, it's not the non-physical that is alien to consciousness, the mind, it's physical form that is alien to consciousness (the mind). This infers that consciousness natural state is non-physical, not physical as we perceive, this is the illusion that physical existence has given us I feel.

True Meaning of Old Texts: Our perception, within a physical existence, has given us the perception that the mind can't possibly exists without the brain, this of course is untrue. Many of the old texts are written by people that are aware of this, however, so that people of the perception that the mind is the brain perception, meaning, that these people are predominantly of the physical perception, these old texts had to be written so that the average person could comprehend what is being stated. This meant that the writer had to express himself in a physical way, everything written had to be put into a physical perspective.

A good example of this is God, God's and Goddesses and demons, devils and angels to name a few. We often put these entities into form because that is the only way we can comprehend and perceive their being, otherwise they couldn't exist for us. In actuality this is how these old text writers had to write, most of the times, they had to put a physical figure or representations to something that was and is of a non-physical consciousness entity. For example, is God a white bearded man in a white robe? No, but God's consciousness had to be presented like this so that the average person could comprehend what was being portrayed within these texts, we are also talking about a people who were  predominantly illiterate as well when these texts were written. Could you imagine telling people of God's consciousness as being just a consciousness and expect the populous to comprehend where you were coming from? It just wouldn't have happened so the old texts had to be written so that the average person could comprehend them, this meant that when it came to explaining consciousness,  these texts where encoded into symbols to hide the real meanings of the texts.

Devils and angels are the same, devils haven't got horns and angels haven't got wings, this is our perception of these kinds of consciousnesses so we can relate to them to acknowledge them. This kind of acknowledgment is needed in a consciousness that is predominantly of the mind of physical existence, meaning, the physical is acknowledge before the non-physical. Any consciousness that perceives the physical before the non-physical, needs physical acknowledgment, this means putting each consciousness, like God, angles and demons, into a physical representation for acknowledgment. Often old texts will present themselves inline with the physical when their own acknowledgment is of the non-physical.

So what is all this saying?

It's saying that there is only consciousness until consciousness is expressed or recreated into physical form. The devil is a representation of a conscious way of existing as is Jesus or Buddha for example. They are not a representation of a being or beings, they are a representation of a consciousness, a non-physical consciousness. Now not many of us can comprehend this or even want to comprehend this but some of us can, and yes, we are at that stage of human consciousness where a certain number of people are able to comprehend beyond physicality.

We can indeed create or summon a being or beings that look like devils and angels for example, within a physical existence, this is a good thing to occur though because it gives us a comprehension of something we might not otherwise become aware of.


We do indeed have a choice, either to live by a Jesus/Buddha consciousness or by a devils consciousness for example, remembering though, Jesus/Buddha consciousness is of awareness, wisdom and harmony where's the devils consciousness is of ignorance, folly disharmony, the choice is indeed ours to make. I know what kind of consciousness wisdom would choose to exist by......!!  

Sunday 5 June 2016

Moving Away from Our Created Divisions



Written by Mathew Naismith

When you divide anything, it becomes separate to the whole, a pie is a good example of this, now perceive the collective whole consciousness as a pie, the more it's separated, the more pieces we have. Every time we divide this pie, the smaller the pieces become, consciousness is the same. Now consider the content of each piece as we divide it, it too becomes smaller, now liken this content of the piece of pie to the amount of consciousness awareness. If we keep dividing consciousness itself up, this consciousness awareness becomes less and less due to the less content within each piece of consciousness. Human consciousness and it's perceptions is but one tiny piece of the pie.

Now how divided is this human consciousness? How many different ideologies, concepts, countries and classes of people do we have to name a few? Now how perceptive are these consciousnesses going to be on their own when they are divided from the whole human collective consciousness? Now consider how divided these divided human consciousnesses are compared to the whole collective consciousness? We couldn't be more divided and the more we label, the more divided we become from the collective consciousness, the whole pie. In actuality, in a whole collective consciousness point of view, labels don't exist, they can't for the main reason, their is no pieces of the pie to label, only one whole pie..... You can't even label this whole pie as a collective consciousness within a whole consciousness, we can only label this whole consciousness within a divided consciousness.

Appreciations of Labels: While I was talking to my wife about this topic this morning, I noticed a women's photo in the paper, I was instantly attracted, "what a dish". I then instantly realised how I was attracted to a labelled opposite to myself, I however didn't label my reaction to being one thing or another, it wasn't a negative or a positive reaction, it was just a reaction to a labelled opposite to myself. I then appreciated the appreciation  my labelling gave me, I actually appreciated being able to express more of consciousness even when it's divided, however, by further labelling our own labelling as being negative or positive in any sense, divides this pie up even more to the extent of becoming opposing opposites instead of just labelled opposites.

Opposites do not instantly mean opposing, it means we have a chance to express consciousness in every sense, of course labelling by opposing opposites also allow us to further more express, therefore experience, consciousness even more, this is when these divisions become noticeably destructive however. 

I appreciate my labelling but at the same time try to avoid labels that are opposing.....   

Opposing Divisions: Recently, I had lunch with some old work colleagues, one of my past work colleagues asked me if I was going to catch up with them next week, I said, "I will try", they then stated that try is a negative. The point is, is not stating or labelling a negative a negative to begin with? Within an undivided consciousness, there are no actual negatives as the perception of negatives denote an opposing division, there are no divisions within an undivided consciousness so negatives just don't exist within an undivided consciousness but they do within a divided consciousness.

Once we label (judge) what is negative, we do this through opposing divisions as opposed to a positive, meaning, once we label, we divide negative and positive as opposing, this is different to labelling a noticeable division between two opposites where there is no judged negative or positive. Opposing divisions will always give us negatives and positives, negatives and positives just don't exist within an undivided consciousness due to the fact that there is no conscious opposition to itself. When positives or negatives have no opposing opposites, what then makes a positive and a negative? However, opposites, without being opposing, exist within an undivided consciousness as there are no labels, it's these labels that give us opposing perceptions and perspectives, divisions.

Undivided Opposites: Now we might think an undivided consciousness doesn't have opposites within itself as it's undivided. Let's look at a pie here, is there not an outer and inner layer of the pie while the pie is still whole? Is there not an outer and inner layer of all consciousness? There are always opposites in everything without being opposing, opposing is only relevant and existing within a divided consciousness. Opposites do not automatically mean a division, yes, within a consciousness that divides there is but not in an undivided consciousness.

We have indeed created these divisions that have created a reality divided upon itself. The pie is perceived to be no longer whole, in actuality, the pie just doesn't exist for us any more even when all the content of the pie is still being experienced and expressed by us. It's strange experiencing a consciousness that no longer sees itself as part of the pie, consciousness itself as a whole. Human consciousness has divided itself so much that it can no longer see it's still the pie, consciousness as a whole. We don't have to stop in labelling opposites to realise we are the pie, just stop labelling opposing opposites, within this, labels will no longer play a major part in our existence as they do at present.


We too often think opposites has to be in opposition when the truth is very different, but only in an undivided consciousness is this different. The truth can only be found when consciousness is no longer perceived as being divided, the pie is whole no matter how divided it seems, there are no true opposing opposites, only opposites, the outer and inner layer of the pie but as a whole with no divisions!!                        

Thursday 19 May 2016

The Vastness of Consciousness


Written by Mathew Naismith

If man's consciousness existed for a billion years, it would be like a grain of sand upon a beach compared to consciousness as a whole. This is how vast consciousness is and how small man's consciousness is no matter how long he's consciousness existed for......

Man's consciousness could exist for a trillion years and still be but a grain of sand on a beach compared to infinite consciousness. Put it this way, if we fell asleep for five seconds and awaken from this sleep, how significant would this five seconds be to an average persons life? It wouldn't be, this is a real depiction of man's consciousness as a whole, it's minute compared to our whole being, infinite consciousness itself.     

I will now share a couple of conversations I had with Eddie Lau and Meda Raveendra Reddy Foundation to hopefully get a better depiction of the vastness of consciousness itself.  

Reply:
Delusions from our greed(pulling) and hatred(aversion/pushing) movement at once is the cause of our separations of inner and outer. They are actually one whole truth without boundary when we really see. Whatever we perceive from the outside are the reflections of ourselves when there is no movement at all. The separation/fragmentation begins the moment we moved mentally/physically. We are limitless when we are not.

My Reply:
Utterly so in my mind, boundaries are created when we exist by the finite as opposed to the infinite.

We might perceive that the infinite is more of motion than the finite but this isn't so, the infinite is motionless as it has no purpose to go from one point to another for all points are within the same space......as such.

We often look at the infinite as being more of motion because it's seemingly infinite therefore always of motion, however, there is no actual space within the infinite for motion to exist I feel for there is no need of space and time within the infinite.

The strange thing is, the infinite is only infinite while consciousnesses is being expressed as motion in the finite, it's actually the finite that gives the infinite it's endless boundaries.

As you said, they are one whole truth without boundaries, boundaries are actually an illusion, however, without these boundaries, there is no infinite for the finite and the infinite are one of the same thing.

Boundaries and limitations define the infinite unless we are too caught up in the illusion. Strangely enough, illusions are necessary for us, that's why they exist but we need to be aware of this otherwise the infinite won't exist for us, this is often highly destructive.

An example of this is in the way we use energy, we use energy as a finite source which can be highly destructive. Using energy as a infinite source actually works in the opposite, it's highly constructive. We see energy as being created and destroyed in a reality of the finite, a starting and ending point or origin. An infinite reality sees energy as being always there, this means consciousness within such an infinite reality will only use an energy source that has no starting or ending point of origin, within this, there is no destruction.

Science know you can't destroy energy as energy itself is infinite, however, what energy creates isn't infinite, it's finite, of motion. All motion is of the finite where's all motionlessness is of the infinite.

Return Reply:
We are indeed the energy now transforming from a form to another ceaselessly. 

Reply:
Our outer environment and its consciousness exists every where. But what we can perceive is only what is possible for our consciousness. What is un-consciousness? some thing we are not conscious of it. When we are aware of it, then it becomes part of our consciousness. So, it is our consciousness which I think you are referring to inner conciseness keep on expanding. to say it is infinite, I am not sure if it is the right word to use. May be it is expandable but always have its limits.

My Reply:
Meda Raveendra Reddy Foundation As I will explain in my next post, consciousness refers to motion, all motion is of this expansion, the finite, but is also of the infinite as in forever expanding.

Expansion actually infers finite and infinite for any consciousness to expand, it also needs limitations, boundaries. 

Is therefore motionlessness (timelessness) this un-conscious? 

I think this un-consciousness doesn't exist for it's not of any kind of energy, it can only exist within a consciousness which makes it a creation of consciousness to start with. So yes you are right, this ever expandable (infinite) consciousness has it's limitations. 

The yin can't exist without the yang, does this mean consciousness can't exist without the un-conscious as well? The yin can't exist without the yang for without the yin the yang has nothing to compare it's existence with. Consciously speaking, the un-conscious has to exist to prove that consciousnesses also exists!! A paradox as always but quite comprehensible.



Finite = time + consciousness + space + motion + limitations + energy

Infinite = timelessness + non-consciousness + no space + motionlessness + unlimited + energy

Time and space: It's understandable that time and space are of the finite, what's interesting is that there are numerous, and yes, infinite starting and ending points within time itself, therefore in reality, time is an expression of the infinite as well as the finite.

Non-consciousness: Now the question of an existence of a non-consciousness is questionable, for a non-consciousness to exist, this non-consciousness needs a consciousness to realise this non-consciousness exists in the first place, basically, the yin needs the yang to exist and visa-versa.

Is there a nothingness of non-consciousness? I believe so but it can't be put into words or explained in any sense for it's non-consciousness, to put it into words would be of consciousness, once you do this, you are no longer speaking of a non-consciousness. This non-consciousness is more of a feeling than anything, it's certainly not a knowing for to know denotes a consciousness.

Motion/Motionlessness: Motion is of time and space therefore is of the finite for motion depicts a starting and ending point. Motionlessness however is of no time or space therefore is of the infinite as there is no starting or ending point of existence, no life or death.

Limitation/Unlimited: Because there are starting and ending points in time, these starting and ending points limit a consciousness to the finite. An unlimited consciousness however  is infinite because there are no limitations to a consciousness that has no boundaries unlike a consciousness within time. A state of timelessness allows a consciousness to express itself beyond the boundaries of time void of starting an ending points.                     

Energy; refers to both the infinite and the finite for all expressions in time are due to the infinite. Look at it like this, a motion picture has various frames that make up a motion picture, basically each separate frame of the picture film make up a motion picture by putting each frame into motion in realities of the finite. The infinite doesn't work like this, it sees all of the motion picture film as one frame, a collective picture or one picture, not many. This one picture frame, even though it's motionless, is still a depiction of an energy source otherwise the frame of the picture film wouldn't and couldn't exist.

Finite = separate frames put into motion as one picture film in motion, this can only occur in time based realities.

Infinite = all the separate frames are in one frame which is motionless, there is no motion in the infinite so no motion occurs. This means timelessness is a depiction of one still picture frame while showing the whole collective picture film simultaneously. You can see why an infinite consciousness is so aware, it is aware of the whole picture all of the times.      

Now I've put non-consciousness with energy while stating that this non-consciousness isn't an energy source. The reason for this is to do with the only way to become aware of this non-consciousness, is through the infinite, a state of timelessness, this is the only state that you will become aware of this non-consciousness. The infinite still denotes a consciousness but only through this timeless, motionless consciousness. The infinite and non-consciousness are certainly closely interlinked.

Consciousness as a whole is certainly vast and quite incomprehensible at times because of it's massiveness, the strange thing is, this whole collective consciousness is actually quite minute/tiny for only in motion is anything massive and sizeable, this is because motion expands on this motionless consciousness through it's expressions. Anything of this motionless consciousness expressed, automatically becomes larger but only in time.     



I'm sorry if I haven't explained myself very well here, it's a very difficult topic to comprehend at the best of times.   

Saturday 16 January 2016

Spiritual Exemplifications


Written by Mathew Naismith

I've written the following in response to my recent interactions with other people, I'm actually going to conduct a talk on this matter through a group of like minded people I've recently interacted with.


It has come to mind, through recent interactions, that a basic understanding of terminology used within spirituality is needed. What a lot of us are aware of within these terminological expressions is too ambiguous and numerous, there seems to be  no basic conceptual comprehension. This of course makes communicating our own perceptions quite difficult for other people to understand, I do hope the following assists in this area.

Consciousness: An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation. Cognition is in reference to the process of perception and learning and reasoning. Cognition is mainly to do with  psychological processes, it's how the psyche processes what it becomes aware of . For example, if our perception is fixated to a certain ideological perspective, all we will become aware of is a cognitive state that is unaware of any other state to one degree or another.

The openness of our cognitive state (consciousness) determines what we will become aware of. Remembering our meditative states takes an open cognitive state of consciousness, our cognitive state is certainly important in spirituality even though we are supposed to think less and feel more.

You might find this interesting, once you deplete the thinking process, this thinking process is taken over by feelings and intuition. This is very much the same when we lose one of our five senses, the other senses become more in tune or heightened. Take away the thinking process of the mind, all our other senses become more in tune or heightened. Take away the controlling ego, what of our other senses will this bring to fruition?

It is well known that this universe was created from a consciousness, a cognitive state that isn't influenced by certain senses but all senses, this means everything is consciousness before it becomes a reflection of this consciousness. In our case, the reflection of consciousness has given this concussions form, the physical universe and everything within this universe, in other words everything is consciousness.    

Spirituality: Spirituality is to do with the spirit of all things, being that everything is created from the essence of consciousness itself, the essence being the spirit within all things. Now if spiritualty is determined by the spirit of all things, spiritualty actually refers to everything in existence, in other words spiritualty is in reference to everything. However, spirituality is more defined by the spirit within all things, a cognitive perception that is beyond material ownership, basically, a perception that perceives beyond a controlling ego, a perception that is aware of the spirit within all things without question.  

Spiritual Awareness: Again, it's an awareness beyond the conditioned  perception controlled by a controlling ego. Spiritual awareness allows one to disconnect with our physical senses and mind thus allowing us to become aware beyond these fixated senses.

Basically, spiritual awareness is about switching off our conditioned senses and turning on our other senses that are normally beyond these fixated senses comprehension. In this case, once we switch off the controlling factors of a controlling ego, our other hidden senses take over giving us a much more open perception and understanding of ourselves and our environment.         

When we lose one of our five senses, the other senses become more heightened (in tune), this gives us quite a different perception, spiritual awareness is no different......

Psychic/Sixth Sense: A person apparently sensitive to things beyond the natural range of perception, the natural range being the natural behaviour of a controlled consciousness fixated to using the five senses above all other senses.  

Once again, psychic is in reference to a perception beyond normal human conditioning. This perception allows a consciousness to naturally utilise our other senses, these senses being relative to being psychic, in other words being psychic means one is utilising their other senses beyond the five senses, this is often called our sixth sense.

Conscious Changes: We all know that the 2012 conscious change didn't occur, it didn't just happen so we, while still being influenced and conditioned by the masculine, thought is didn't eventuate.

The masculine is all about power and control, this means once a change occurs under this influence, it will happen quite dramatically and often instantly.  

What we haven't considered is that the feminine isn't about control or power, so isn't it understandable that any change under this influence isn't going to forcedly and instantly and even noticeably occur? This is because the feminine is nurturing and very subtle in it's expressions, any change influenced by such a change, will gradually occur. In actuality, the change occurred right under our noses purely because it occurred in such a subtle way. Any change occurring in such a subtle way, is a very good indication of this 2012 conscious change occurring.  As for myself, the change was quite noticeable, this is the time I started blogging my channellings and perceptions that obviously go beyond normal human conditioning and reasoning.   


Note: Please don't take what I have stated here as being gospel or of absolute truth, it's only my own perceptions of what is.