Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts

Saturday 5 September 2015

Avoid Creating Our Own Dilemmas


Written by Mathew Naismith

Yes, we create our own dilemmas and yes we often blame something else for our dilemmas when we often cause them ourselves, quite inadvertently (unknowingly) though. Spiritual awareness is indeed to me all about becoming aware of the unknown, creating our own dilemmas personally and collectively  is an unknown until we become aware of them. This post will hopefully bring a little light to this topic.

I received the following reply to my last, slightly loony, post. It's in relation to a very good question that, in my mind, needs to be answered, "Why isn't our good will and love upon the world seem to be working, actually, the reality we are in seems to be getting worse not better?"

I think you would have to be sticking your head in the and to think it's getting better, less destructive. Recent events once again tell us we are actually getting more destructive not less destructive on the collective scale. I hope the following will shed light on this quite important topic.         


Though  I will not stop my spiritual practices I just want to know, every morn one of my practices is to fill my self to over flowing with the golden pinkish light of loving kindness and super super healing and I expand this energy to fill my apt. , my city, my state, my Country, the entire planet, and then expand it to enter all of infinitum and all living energies, I do this with extreme hope and desire that there will be universal healing to all, and of course I see violence and sadness still on the news, like the sad little Syrian boy dead on the beach all the war refugees and his family trying to flee this impending war  and unrest , I sadly wonder why my healing meditation seems not to influence the universe to help and protect our planet, I will not stop, but why is this most powerful unconditional energies of love appear to be falling on a deaf universe, Why?


My Response

I most wholeheartedly feel were you are coming from Lori.

In the early part of the nineteenth century, a number of Indian tribes in the US got together to pray for peace and understanding, what came from this was yet another slaughter, similar events occurred in Australia as well. This wasn't the first time these Indians tried to pray for peace and understanding. So why did this good will not only work but seemed to create quite the opposite?

To understand this you need to be aware that everything is consciousness, science experiments like the double slot experiment seem to be saying this as well. You also have two prominent neurosurgeons stating that a type of consciousness of one kind or another exists in everything, including rocks!!

We need to consider this for one main reason, consciousness will react to an action or a reaction, consciousness can indeed be retaliative, the more expressive of motion (movement) a consciousness becomes, the more it will retaliate. For example, the reason why spiritualists from India are far less about motion is to lesson their own retaliative responses to their environment, their not producing more motion therefore more chaos unlike we do. This less motion gives them utter peace and tranquillity no matter what is occurring around them

This is only my view, it's certainly not gospel, giving love, no matter how pure it is in reaction, will only cause a reaction from a consciousness hell bent on destruction. What a lot of people don't consider is, a destructive consciousness is still a consciousness and will retaliate quite automatically to love, actually at times it will use this love against itself.  Unbeknownst to a lot of people who give love in reaction/retaliation, are actually feeding what they are in retaliation against. Of cause consciousness is going to react to a reaction against it, this is how consciousness works. The more of motion a consciousness is, the more chance of it becoming destructive. Retaliating against any kind of consciousness is only creating more motion, this of course is  only going to create even more destruction.

So what's the answer? Become aware of what you are creating when expressing motion especially in retaliation, this however doesn't mean we can't give love to the world and it's people, just don't do it in retaliation.

I know this is hard to do, give as much love, if not more love, to consciousness's hell bent on destruction, don't look at them as victimisers but victims of circumstance. No consciousness will automatically become destructive unless it's influenced to do so in some way.

The main point is, don't give love in retaliation against another consciousness, this will only cause a reaction, give love but a love without conditions. At the moment we are only giving love because of certain conditions when we should have just given love without having to have conditions attached, in other words we just don't know how to love and we certainly don't know how to use consciousness to constructively in love. 

Again, don't take this as gospel Lori, these are only my own personal views, nothing more.


It's funny to think, we have considered our reaction of our own consciousness upon another consciousness, but on the other hand, we have totally ignored any possibility of  counteractions from a more destructive consciousness.

Is a consciousness of love more powerful and domineering over more destructive consciousness's?  When you consider motion here, which consciousness is more of motion, love or destructive expressions? To me you can't retaliate against a consciousness that is highly expressive of motions with more motions, all this will do is create a retaliative response. To me love should never be expressed as a motion if you don't want a retaliative response from a consciousness hell bent on destruction.

Also, love should never be domineering or controlling for starters, when we react in retaliation, this is exactly how we are using love, to control and dominate another more highly aggressive consciousness, of course this consciousness will retaliate with even more motions, it's silly not to think it wouldn't.

I do know of a number of spiritually aware people who give love to the world void of conditions, meaning, they don't need a dilemma or a catastrophe to occur to give love to the world and it's people, they do this anyway. The dilemma that we are causing ourselves is more of us are giving love in retaliation, in other words our love has conditions when it didn't before. How many people could go up to a person, like Hitler or a child molester, and hug them with pure devotional non-conditional love?  Not many, until we learn to do this we will keep retaliating and causing even more motion.

What seems to be happening is there is so many catastrophes occurring, we are reacting more towards what we deem as victimisers/perpetrators, we have become sick and tired of all this destructiveness and are now retaliating more than ever. Yes, all we are trying to do is give love to who we have judged to be victims, this love is of course in retaliation or reaction to  what we have judged as victimisers. As soon as you judge a victim, you automatically, at the same time, judge a victimiser, this is how consciousness works.

The best way is to judge them as all victims in one sense or another or don't judge any of them as being a victim, as soon as we judge, we create an instantaneous reaction that can go on and on, this will keep occurring as long as one consciousness (person) reacts to another consciousness (person).

Truly, never try to dominate/control another consciousness, by interfering and giving love to what we have judged as being victims, we are counteracting what the victimisers are doing, in other words we are trying to control what they are doing. Unconditional love is not controlling, your not trying to change what another consciousness is doing, you are purely only giving love but give this love without trying to change anything that another consciousness is doing. Retaliating in this way is only going to cause a retaliative response.

No matter how we express ourselves, we are all victims of circumstance, there are no true victimisers. With this mentality to start with, we should be able to give love to all without conditions and avoid a retaliative controlling response. All consciousness influenced by unconditional love will change quite automatically without a reaction from any kind of consciousness. Unconditional love is  subtle and motionless believe it or not, this is why it works so so well, this is all due to unconditional love causing  less motion not more.


Yes indeed, we are causing our own dilemmas, we are using love to control and dominate another consciousness when all we should be doing is allowing unconditional love to run it's natural coarse. Yes, this will take time and the more we respond to what other consciousness's are doing, the longer this process will take. By all means give love but give this love unconditionally, any conditions whatsoever will only cause a retaliative response from another consciousness.                   

Friday 21 August 2015

Why Are We Expressing More Love?


Written by Mathew Naismith

I think it's to do with balancing, the balancing out between our minds and our hearts. I wrote the following on a Google community recently in relation to this important balance between our heart and our head. 


The heart allows us to focus on the collective where's the head allows us to focus on ourselves, both are important.  

The heart allows us to love where the head allows us to think, balance is certainly the key. 

When the head is in control, love is left out in the cold, all hell breaks loose. When the heart controls the head,  we loose growth through awareness and stagnate.  

Love is on the cards for a very good reason, it will give us back our balance.  


I think it's important not to get love confused with lust because lust is of the head, not the heart, for example, when a women or child is raped, this is lust, this is wholly driven by the mind not the heart. No one who truly loves could even think of raping  what they lust after, this is due to lustful thoughts being balanced out by love.  

Heart = love + collective + expressive of love + feelings + impulse + ego
Head/mind = lust + individual + expressive of thought +awareness + logics + egotism

The collective/individual: Now it's interesting to see the difference between the head and the heart in relation to the collective and the individual, the heart is of the collective and the head is of the individual. If you have noticed, people who are truly expressive of love, express this to the collective, not themselves, however, when a person is mainly expressive of love of  themselves, this is the head not the heart. In this case it's more about lust, for example, "People just can't help  lusting after me because I'm so beautiful and/or powerful". 

Now the head is of individualism, the reason for this lies in the way the ego is used by the mind. The mind, without the balance of the heart, becomes egotistical because the mind is about the individual, not the collective. When we become knowledgeable and aware, it's about the individual mind becoming knowledgeable and aware, it's not about the collective mind. This is even the case when the mind shares such knowing,  it's, "Look at what I know". However, when we balance out this knowing with love, we then start to share this knowing in a different way, it's then expressed as, "Look at what I'm sharing with you". With the heart balancing out the head, the expressions of the mind becomes about the collective instead of the individual, actually, there are people out there who become aware just to serve the collective mind.

Expressions of love and thought:  The expression of love has everything to do with feelings as expressions of thought is to do with awareness. Yes, feelings can bring on awareness but feelings are more about impulses rather than a thought, this is why at times we will become aware of something out of the blue for no reason. This is why impulses are all to do with the heart and logics has everything to do with the head/mind. 

If we were to primarily use the heart over and above the mind, our awareness would stagnate, it wouldn't progress or evolve, this is because the only things we would want to become aware of, would be love orientated, everything else not of love, would be ignored. 

If we were to primarily use the head over and above the heart, our awareness would evolve but our wisdom in knowing how to use this knowledge would founder (collapse) in on itself, basically destroy itself if not balanced out with the heart. This sounds like a reality I know of........!!!!!  

If you noticed I didn't primarily relate wisdom to the heart nor the head, this is because it's of neither but both when the heart and head are used in balance with each other. In today's society, this makes true wisdom scarce therefore very valuable to the collective, this is due to most people being either of the head or the heart.

Balance: This reality is primarily influenced by the head, it's too easy to counteract this by using the heart, the consensus is, the more heart, the better but it's not. By primarily counteracting the head with the heart, we are still lacking wisdom, wisdom can only be gained through balance, a good example of this was Confucius.  





The middle Confucius quote above I feel relates to evolving, to do this successfully however takes balance between the heart and the head as the last quote above denotes. This came from a man who used his mind but used his mind in balance with  his heart it would seem, we can certainly all do this.  

Tuesday 21 July 2015

Gaining From Our Losses


Written by Mathew Naismith

I thought I would share the following that I wrote to a friend that has just experienced a great loss recently, it’s all to do with the way I am at the moment.

Life at times can be a hard road to tread but always well worth the effort no matter what our losses are. If you have experienced a loss, you have experienced a gain you might not ever have experienced in the first place. Loses in our lives only mean we were lucky enough to experience a gain........could you imagine never experiencing a loss, now that would be a shame. Love and best wishes Susan.


END POST…….

Thursday 2 July 2015

Love-A Motionless Expression


Written by Mathew Naismith

Firstly, please don’t get motionless mixed up with emotionless, motionless is to do with no or little movement as emotionless has to do with no or little feelings. This post is about a motionless expression which automatically brings on the feeling of love within oneself. I should also point out, the following is only my perception on this, this has nothing to do with absolute truth.

The one thing about spiritual awareness that is quite noticeable to me, is that spiritual awareness naturally and automatically brings on the feeling of love and oneness, we could quite easily say love is brought about by the feeling of oneness, a togetherness of the whole self. This isn’t exactly true, what I feel brings on this feeling of love is ourselves expressing less motion, the more we become aware, the less we think and the more we feel.

Feelings are not about motion, we don’t have to express feelings to become aware of them, they have naturally always been there. The thinking process is different, as soon as we think, we have motion. If you look around you right now, how many things are created through motion that didn’t take any thought process at all? Everything around us has taken a thought process to create, this means everything around you is about motion, a conscious thought instead of a conscious feeling. Yes, feelings can be put into thought therefore motion but these feelings don’t have to be put into motion to exist, they have always existed, this of course means love, as opposed to lust and desire, have always existed.

We could say here that a rock didn’t take thought to exist but it did, it took motion to create rocks through the big bang, so what I am saying here is the big bang came from a thought process way beyond our human perceptions. Many people of course call this kind of consciousness God. To me, everything created takes some kind of conscious thought process to exist, it’s all about motion but what about motionless, how much do we know about this state of consciousness?

Some people actually say this motionless consciousness isn’t consciousness at all, it’s nothingness  because it has no motion. Just because this consciousness has no motion doesn’t mean it isn’t an expression of a consciousness. Like I said, to be aware of feelings you don’t have to express them through motion because they already exist, if feelings have always existed so has consciousness.

So how do we know feelings, therefore love, have always existed?

While becoming spiritually aware you can think less, this means you are less expressive of motion, however,  you actually begin to feel more while thinking less unless we put these feelings into motion, into action. To express any feelings is to create motion through the processes of thought, however, the less you express these feelings within motions, the more you understand how these feelings (love)  have always existed.  This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express what we feel, it just means the less expressive you are, the more aware you become.

This brings us back to the observer, feelings are more to do with an observer than thought processes, once we start thinking as an observer, we loose our unbiased observations. We can still, as an unbiased observer, observe feelings put into motion but it’s advisable we don’t become too involved with these motions that are being expressed.  A good psychologist/ psychiatrist follow the same rules.

Now this isn’t easy for humans to do, this is because humans are conditioned to express motion, actually they know little about any other way to exist. You can now imagine a reality that is conditioned to do otherwise, a reality conditioned to be as expressive as little as possible, this doesn’t mean they don’t feel, actually feelings within a reality like this are more about love, this is due to being aware of existing without having to be as expressive of these feelings (love).

We might ask how could we have more feelings of love without expressing such feelings? 

The less you express love through thought, therefore motion, the more love you feel, this is inline with becoming spiritually aware, don’t most of us feel more love while becoming aware while thinking less? This is due to motion denoting chaos, the more people who express motion, the more chaos you are obviously going to create, however, imagine everyone becoming less about motion and thought and more about motionless and feelings. Take the motion out of thought, what would we create?  You certainly wouldn’t create chaos and it’s this chaos that takes the love out of our lives.

You don’t have to be expressive of love to feel love, it is truly a natural occurrence without us trying to create this  love through motion.  Now the problem we cause ourselves through expressing love, is everyone has a different idea in how to express this love, a lot of love is expressed as lust and desire, this is wholly due to thinking processes.  No one person has the same thinking process, this is like no one has the same exact DNA, therefore we have various expressions of love within one reality. Basically what I am saying is it’s these various and numerous expressions that creates a chaotic reality but not all realities exist like this, realities conditioned to less motional expressions are less chaotic and more about a true sense of love.


I think it’s also important to be aware of the lust for love instead of the love of love, the lust for love is all about motional thought where’s the love of love is motionless thought, or should be, this again doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express our love as such. We will feel love and so will others around us without having to express love through motion, or as much motion. In my mind, more of us need to learn to become aware that you can’t create love, the true feelings of love are motionless therefore still, peaceful and  tranquil.            

Saturday 4 April 2015

Human Perspective vs Spiritual Perspectives



Written by Mathew Naismith

This is an awkward discussion to share which will, I think, show how different perspectives look at fear, love, hate heaven and hell quite on a different level of understanding.

Actually I decided not to share such a discussion as this discussion
became too inept/tactless in my mind, it would seem others can express their perspectives but as soon as anyone else points out different perspectives, this isn't taken well by certain people, it would seem only their own perspectives speak the truth. It would be nice if some people could see past their own fixations to their own belief systems at times, how else will we take on new conscious changes!!
Some people believe fear is the opposite to love not hate, this is one perspective, other people like myself believe fear can't be the opposite of love. The main argument against love being the opposite of hate is you cannot express love and fear at the same time, but what about a partner who has their partner, they love dearly, about to depart this life, are they not expressive of love and fear when fearing of losing there beloved partner?

The following was stated to me as another argument for fear being the opposite of love, I imagine a place that must contain all the love that could exist in any space .... perhaps 'heaven' or perhaps a divine spiritual realm ... would such a place contain any 'fear' ? Why is that ?”

Such a place would not contain fear because fear isn't a tool that is needed in such an aware conscious state, we don't exist in such an aware state of consciousness so fear is a tool we can use to become aware but only if we face our fears.

Now what happens when we don't face our fears? Fear becomes the opposite of love mainly because fear becomes something negative instead of something positive or neutral.

It would seem the only time fear is the opposite of love, is when we only look at fear as something negative instead of something positive or neutral,however, this view relates wholly to the human perspective of fear, not the spiritual aspect of fear.

If love is positive and fear is negative, fear has to be the opposite of love, to me this is a human perspective, what if you now looked at fear as something positive or neutral, it instantly changes the aspect of fear altogether because fear is no longer the opposite of love. Try changing hate in the same manner, it doesn't work for a very good reason, to me this is a spiritual perspective.

I find the human perspective on fear quite funny actually, as usual the human perspective blinds one to the truth that fear can be what ever we want it to be.

One more example; I love my wife to bits, could I not also at the exact same time feel fear in losing her? Now can I hate and love my wife at the same time? No because you cannot mix fire and water together as you cannot mix hate and love together, yes at times fear doesn't or can't mix with love, this doesn't make fear eternally the opposite of love.

If it wasn't for conquering my fears, what would I be aware of at present? Very little so fear isn't altogether negative but it can be when we don't face them, when I don't face them, this is when love can become the opposite of love. Only through human perspectives can fear become the opposite of love.

To give a different twist to this topic the following statement was made in this discussion,Fear of the unknown is, what I believe, we experience when we think about Heaven, if there is such a thing, and/or Hell, if there is such a thing. It is my belief, that heaven and hell is what we experience here on Earth. Just my 2 cents worth.
Come on guys, make something of that belief. Please. I am bored”


Heaven and hell are a perspective either created through human perspectives or spiritual aspects, heaven in a human perspective illustrates love and fearlessness and hell is illustrated as hate and fear. You can in this human perspective see how love is eternally seen as the opposite of fear.

The spiritual aspect to this is quite different, there is no true separation, all of what is, is pure consciousness until we bring in human perspectives in our case, this is when we start fearing fear through the separation of consciousness. In this conscious state we start separating love from hate, fear from love.

In a true spiritual sense, heaven and hell don't exist but because of our human perspectives, they do exist and through this perspective we do indeed truly create a heaven and hell on Earth and beyond.
Another perspective to look at, how many people within themselves have created hate in opposition to love? Too many to count, how many people have created fear in opposition to love? I might be a little presumptuous here but I would say zilch.

We create what we perceive, if we perceive fear is the opposite to love, that is what we will create and that is exactly what some people have created. This is exactly the same for hate and love, in a true spiritual aspect, there are no opposites, however, because we all live within an ignorant state of consciousness, we have created opposites.

Within this conscious state I will never accept hate as a state of consciousness to exist by in this lifetime, there is enough of that around anyway, I don't need to add to it. This however doesn't mean that other people shouldn't experience such states of consciousness and I accept that.


Let's now look at the words fear, love and hate in a vibrational sense of the word, words don't sound the way they do for no reason.

Say the word love, now say the word hate, the vibrations you get from saying these words are quite different to each other, now say the word fear, it's neither a pleasant vibration as love nor an unpleasant vibration as hate so where does this leave fear? To me this denotes a neutral vibration until we use it in a negative or positive way which is all down to how our perspectives, either it be human, spiritual or both, perceives such vibrations.

We need to detach ourselves from old teachings from an old consciousness to take on any new consciousness's, this I'm afraid does take one to let go of a lot of the old teachings that no longer serve a new consciousness. Like the Earth, we must keep evolving by riding ourselves or changing our old consciousness to see the new consciousness more clearly.

   

Thursday 2 April 2015

Fear, A Neutral State Of Affairs


Written by Mathew Naismith

I stumbled across a discussion recently in relation to love being an emotion or a choice driven by various thinking processes. In this discussion many people believe fear is the opposite of love not hate, love is just the absence of love, in other words hate doesn't exist. Because hate doesn't truly exist to these people, you can't reverse this and say hate is only the absence of love, my stance on this is stating that hate is defiantly opposing love as the following replies I gave will state why I think this to be the case.


G'day Charlotte 

Hate is produced by ignorance for only in ignorance can we destroy. 


Love is produced by awareness for only in awareness can we be constructive. 


Where does this leave fear? Right smackdang in the middle, fear can be a friend or an enemy, it can either keep us ignorant or make us aware or both, the choice is ours. Most of us seem to judge fear as just an enemy when it can make us aware beyond our present knowing.


OK, fear can produce the emotion hate but not necessarily. 

Happy endorphins can produce the emotion of love but not necessarily. 

One does not have to fear to hate nor does one have to be fearless to love. 

Now can love produce hate or hate produce love? The answer is obvious. 

Let's say I hate guinea pigs, is this because I fear them? Again the answer is obvious, now just say I love guinea pigs, is this because I am fearless of them? Again the answer is obvious. 

Now just say I love guinea pigs, can I at the same time hate them? Just say I feared guinea pigs, does this mean I hate them or just dislike being around them because of this fear?


G'day Tony 

"From my perspective, fear does not cause hate." 

This is exactly what I am saying as fearlessness doesn't cause love but they can. 

Emotions are not always created by thoughts Tony, Ghosts/spirits don't interact by thoughts but by vibrations, yes thoughts are vibration but so is everything else, don't make the mistake in thinking everything without a brain isn't vibrating and isn't picking up on other vibration around it. 

I can't remember their names but two prominent neuroscientists believe everything including a rock has consciousness of one kind or another , emotions are not just of the mind but consciousness itself. 

Can you love and hate the something at the same time? No, the reason for this is they are opposing, now can you love and be fearful or fearless? Most defiantly, so how can fear be the opposite of love Tony? 

Let's take a man who belts up his wife, the wife loves her partner that much she is willing to put up with her fear, now can the some partner hate and love her husband at the same time? It's an impossibility Tony but that is what you are saying when stating fear is supposed to be the opposite of love. 

So if love is the opposite of fear, to be able to love a guinea pig, I would have to first be fearless of it when there is nothing to fear in the first place, this doesn't make sense Tony!! Now to love a guinea pig, I would have to have the absence of hate and to hate a guinea pig I would have to have the absence of love. This analogy makes more sense because love is the opposite of hate.




Do we over rate fear as something just negative? It would seem we do especially if it's supposed to be the opposite of love.


I thought the following was a good description of the positives attributes of fear but as long as one faces such fears, not just try to bury them.


Sorry if this offends anyone one but, to fear fearing only denotes ignorance especially if one is unable or not wanting to face such fears, being fearless of fears is quite the opposite to ignorance, it will open up new awareness in one's consciousness all the times if one is willing to face such fears. Could you imagine not going into unknown conscious states because you fear fearing and that fear is the opposite to love? If fear is the opposite of love, very few people would go into any unknown state of consciousness, what would be the point especially while existing in a conscious state full of hate and chaos? 

My fears have taught me so much about myself and the rest of consciousness, I actually love and appreciate my fears especially when I don't fear facing my fears, so what about the people who do fear fearing. These people will stay ignorant therefore destructive for only through ignorance can we destroy, the problem with this is there is no problem, it's just a different way to exist to not fear fearing.

What about the people who don't fear fearing but have to live in an existence dominated and totally influenced by people fear fearing? There is no problem in this because we don't fear existing in such an existence in the first place, if you do, you still fear fearing which is no big deal.


Wednesday 31 December 2014

Timelessness, of Love and Tranquillity


Written by Mathew Naismith

I thought the following reply I received in regards to my last post was interesting. Jeff has always been an interesting bloke to listen too, he certainly know he’s history especially his ancient history. History isn’t actually about the past because every time we think about history it’s always in the present moment, history is never about a by gone time as Jeff will elaborate on.

I will go into how and why timelessness creates tranquillity and love for us a little further on in the post however, I think it’s wise to become aware of what time represents first for a better understanding of what timelessness actually represents.  

Reply
The following message talks about time in relation to reincarnation.

I think Edgar Cayce said he repeated a life experience in the American Old West time period as a guy by the name of John John Bainbridge.

Someone might want to repeat a life experience to change something they deeply regret for example.

The Lives of Edgar Cayce
[Paperback September, 1995]
by W. H. Church (Author), Joe Dunn (Editor)

Jeff Marzano 11:40 AM

Yes and the idea of reincarnation can make those consequences possible. That's called the Law Of Karma.

Not that karma has to happen in a future life. It can happen 5 minutes from now or also in a past life.

God exists outside of time in the spiritual realm. When we are born we become subject to the laws of time on this planet Earth. But when the physical body dies we return to that timeless dimension.

There are strange theories about how people can be reincarnated into any time period past or future or even live the same life experience over again.

In other words someone could die today and then be reincarnated in ancient Egypt.

Those types of theories raise many strange and paradoxical questions about the nature of time and this physical world. It implies that time is something other than a strictly sequential, linear process.

The weird thing about it is that everyone, everything, and I guess really the entire universe would have to exist in an infinite number of possible futures which may or may not actually happen in this physical world.

If someone wanted to repeat the same life over again everybody else would also still have to be there.

This is all very strange and far beyond human comprehension.

Anyone interested in reincarnation should start watching the TV show Ghost Inside My Child.

This show airs on the LMN channel and right now new episodes are airing on Saturday nights.

My Reply
I utterly concur with this, especially these days, I didn’t know, until recently; time is actually about the interactions of energy not a measurement of time. Take our physical lives for instance, our mind and body are always reacting with itself and other energy sources around it, cancer is a good example of this interaction and so is love as is of what we deem as our demise. Sure we measure this life form but only because of what these life forms (different energy sources) go through when interacting.

Would we have time if we had no interactions of these energy sources? I don’t think so, time is these interactions of different energy sources, without these interactions, I don’t think we would have time. This means timelessness is of non-interactions, this is why it feels so peaceful, tranquil and of love. I believe all energies of timelessness become one through becoming one vibration instead of many. It is very difficult to feel love for a vibration that isn’t in tune with our vibration, timelessness gives us this through the non-interactions of energy sources because all energy sources becomes one energy source through being in tune with other energy sources.  This is becoming one with God or the source I believe.


History isn’t about a past event but an indication of the interactions between energy sources, once we have an interaction we have time and once we have time we have history. Timelessness on the other hand isn’t about an interaction between energy sources, this also means within timelessness there is no history mainly because all energy sources become one. Once there are no interactions, there is no time or history as all vibrational energy sources become in tune with each other as one vibration, this gives us utter tranquillity and love.

Love is produced by being in tune with other vibrational energy sources around us, this is why it’s quite difficult to be totally unconditionally loving in time, we live with numerous and various energy sources that are not in tune with our own vibrations, we can’t expect ourselves to be totally uncordially loving under these circumstances unless we can become one with other vibrational energy sources.

This is the strange thing, as Jeff has pointed out we can relive a life event in ancient Egypt, how can this be so if we are living in time, time is after all about past history, a bygone era?

If we were to only look at time as being a measurement, what Jeff has stated can’t possibly occur, this is due to thinking once a moment of time has passed it’s a part of history that can’t be relieved. Now if we only look at time as being the interactions of energy sources, can we now see Jeff’s statement as being plausible especially when we take in the consideration of timelessness?

Timelessness has no history as a past time event because it’s not of time, history in timelessness becomes just another interaction of energy sources no matter when this event occurred in time. Everything within timelessness becomes the present moment no matter what the interactions of these energy sources create.


We can quite easily see how these timeless states of consciousness create love and tranquillity, there is no conflict or chaos as there is no time to create conflicts between energy sources. If we can learn in time to look at time as an interaction of energy sources instead of a measurement, our existence in time would become a lot more tranquil. The measurement of anything always gives us conflicts mainly because these measurements can oppose each other, in a timeless state of consciousness we don’t have these conflicts because nothing is measured. This is due to everything being within the present moment no matter how far back in the past these interactions seem. Time gives us the delusion that time is of measurements when it’s only of the interactions of energy sources.      

Thursday 4 September 2014

To Love and be Loved


Written by Mathew Naismith

“To love is to not live in the darkness of ignorance but to live without the ego telling us how to love and be loved, awareness is the true essence of being of love.”

Is awareness and wisdom the ability to love and be loved without the ego telling us how? I think wisdom in particular is all about being able to be expressive without having to be told how to be so expressive in such ways.

Is ignorance, as a whole, linked to the controlling factors of the ego? The ego is about the (I) as opposed to the (we), if we are focused on the (I), have we not then become ignorant of the (we)?

We are therefore living in the darkness of ignorance if we allow the ego to show us how to love and be loved, the funny thing is most of us know no other way!!


Awareness gives us the wisdom to look beyond our egos to love and be loved as (we) not as (I). 

Wednesday 11 June 2014

Technicolour Dreamtime, A Reality


Written by Mathew Naismith

There are some really interesting topics and conversations on http://www.spiritualladies.com/at the moment; one of them is about how forgiving gives us happiness. This discussion has led us to wrong and rights, black and white and how these opposing polarities assist us in being unforgiving and that this reality we have created is of this perception of black and white. We are in turn dominated by opposing polarities of black and white however we don’t have to be.

Also on this site are various other topics and images depicting love and enlightenment, most of these images are, funny enough, drawn in technicolour.  This to me obviously has a purpose to why we portray love and enlightenment in technicolour images and perceptions; it’s to give us a message that life doesn’t have to be of a perception of black and white especially of black and white dominance.

We are conditioned from birth to perceive in black and white, what is bad as opposed to good, what is wrong as opposed to right and so on, this of course denotes logical thinking and a perception that there can’t be existence without a black and white dominance.  This I believe is why we can’t perceive past what we consciously perceive, we just can’t perceive past a perception of black and white. Anything beyond this point of conscious understanding can’t possibly exist; to me it makes absolute sense to why some people can’t perceive anything beyond this kind of black and white conscious understanding.  We just don’t perceive in black and white or technicolour by chance, it’s an indication of how we perceive the world as either as opposing polarities or adjoining convergences.  




The hippy era was of adjoining convergences while a perception of black and white (opposing polarities) was dominating the world. If you look back in the hippy era, you will see a lot of colour which went right on through to the disco era to some extent, why such a splash of colour? The hippy era was about love not war, war is brought about by a black and white perception, good against evil, democracy against dictatorship etc. however love on the other hand is of technicolour perception with no opposing polarities. This is brought about by ridding ourselves of black and white perceptions which the hippy era tried to do.

The use of colour in our expressionism isn’t by chance, I believe it defines our breaking away from black and white logical perceptions of the world and seeing the world in a new light, a technicolour light of no opposing sides.  So many images of love and entitlement today are drawn in technicolour in western thinking countries but of course in eastern thinking countries drawing love and enlightenment in colour has seemingly always been the norm.  


Everything has a reason to exist, depicting love and enlightenment in colour has a purpose and that purpose, I believe, is to teach us to live in colour instead of black and white, to perceive past a black and white image to a much colourful conscious expansive existence beyond what we perceive now!!

Thursday 22 May 2014

Love, a Neutraliser of Chaos


Written by Mathew Naismith

This post is in reply to another post titled, Does it really matter what we call the creator? Like with any good post, we tend to dive off in all directions that relate, in some way, to what a particular post is all about.  In this case we have gone off on a totally different tangent however this still relates to the question, does it really matter what we call the creator.  Each path we tread gives us a different perspective and within these different perspectives we perceive things differently, what we each call the creator is but one of them.

Kerrylouise To change the path course and to prevent repeating old patterns then lessons have to be learnt as I am sure that you would agree. We only go down the same old road if we have not yet learnt , so to change the course of our life time we need to learn from things change it in the now and forever move forward  xxx

Mathew Naismith If you go back in human history you will find we have repeatedly walked along the same paths numerous times, war is a prime example of this.

War against other humans, nature, ego, ideologies, beliefs & concepts & so on, what is this trying to teach us? I feel it's teaching us opposing energy sources will create chaos & misery. If you are tired of living in a chaotic world changed how you react to it, this of course takes wisdom or maybe a little bit of common sense!!

Why are so many spiritually aware people into love? Love is a neutralizer neutralizing these opposing polarities. This is quite a different path to what we have been on before, that is why it can be quite difficult at times. In this we need to be aware of the differences of love & lust, lust isn't a neutralizer, & being aware of this, we hopefully won't make the same mistakes as before.

Femininity is also a neutraliser because it’s instinctively nurturing & according to the Mayans, we are entering into a feminine cycle.

Much love xxx



What we each call the creator doesn’t seem to be a neutraliser when it should be in my mind, this is where I feel love comes into it’s own.  The love of the creator, no matter what it’s called, is far more important, this should be focused on more often.  Does it matter if you don’t believe in a divine creator? No because then we are all creators in our own right, just look around you in what we have created. In all I think it’s not important what we call what but how we love whatever we call it. 


Source:
http://www.spiritualladies.com/poll/214/does-it-really-matter-what-we-call-the-creator/

Thursday 15 May 2014

Spirituality and the Push and Pull Effect II


Written by Mathew Naismith

The following is a recount of a discussion I had with a bloke by the name of Eddie. I found this bloke quite enlightening so again I thought I would share but another conversation with him which started off on the topic of unconditional love.  It is quite interesting where this conversation actually went too.


Eddie
We realize the unconditional true love the moment we simply allow all to come, stay and go as they like without the slightest movements of pushing or pulling but simply be. As long as all are happy so am I ~ Love.

Me
Eddie Lau I love your perspective on this.

It's hard for people to just let it be without having the urge/desire to push & pull, they’re not aware by letting it just be without a desire to influence, life becomes quite magical & serine~beautiful Eddie.  

Eddie
Just be without effort naturally is one with the nature of all itself. It is simple but we choose the hard way by seeking endlessly for the truth which we already are therefore we suffer.

Me
Eddie Lau It makes perfect sense Eddie only because we are aware. 

Eddie
Mathew Naismith We can only realize ourselves the moment the effort/intention to realize/seeking ceases.

Me
Eddie Lau Yes, I woke up to this some time ago, it took looking at my attachments as a falsity, how can you become attached to something you never own!!

It must be scary finding out you never even own your own thoughts, I always somehow knew this. If you don't own your own thoughts you own nothing & if you own nothing you have nothing to become attached too.

I have emotional feelings for people, places & things but I don't own or possess them. Having no attachments doesn't make one emotionless. 

Eddie
Mathew Naismith Oh yes, life goes on emotionally with different perspective called compassion knowing all as one whole entire nature itself doing our very best without attachment or trying to control being this or that now or becoming this or that in the future.

Me
+Eddie Lau I believe what you are talking about here takes wisdom to be aware of.

It's funny because I don't understand why most people aren't this wise to understand this, it's a far better way to live than the way they have chosen to live, it's beyond most people's imagination.

Most people make the mistake in attaching attainments to love when love can exist without such attachments.

I was chatting with a lass recently abut unconditional love, she attached pain to love, you can't love without having been in pain at least once. I said we have got to get away of the perception of relating pain with love.

In a reality of total unconditional love pain can't exist because the energy of this love is non-penetrable to anything not of that energy form like pain for instance.  

Eddie
Mathew Naismith We are already the wisdom itself the moment we claim nothing is belonging to us including the wisdom itself. All are indeed the one mind/nature of abundance. Free all as they are so that all frees us as we are.

It is ignorance or delusion not seeing things as they really are but we see things the old habitual ways that we are use to it clinging to what is known fearing the unknown. Therefore we keep seeking and running endlessly chasing our own tails.

I can never exist without you. We can never exist without the all that we can sense. Everything that we can sense are our teachers including our sharings here reflecting on each other on our curiosities and insights.

In reality, the existences were the continuation of the pasts renewing itself to the future endlessly and the only freedom is the wisdom or the understanding of nature/mind while life goes on and on without affection, not affecting the wisdom that was never born and will never dies. 

Me
Eddie Lau Very good answer Eddie, yes we are wisdom itself, I suppose all we have to do is remember this. 

"I can never exist without you", I have stated this a few times which of course to a person who only perceives in oneness can't grasp. It takes individuals to make a collective, oneness is a collective of individuals. Me, as an individual, is just as important than the collective.

The only reason we become aware of oneness isn't through the collective but individuals playing their part. Everything around us is individual parts of the collective, without these individual parts we have no collective.

I also have a lot of people saying we shouldn't think, just quieten the mind & everything will be alright. We have a mind for a reason, yes quietening the mind will improve our living conditions but we have stopped utilizing the mind. All we really have to do is reprogram the mind with different programs that include wisdom.

The way we are using technology today isn't wise obviously, we don't counteract this by dumping the mind but reprogram the mind with different more wiser programmed programs.     

I couldn't agree with you more when you stated, "the only freedom is the wisdom or the understanding of nature/mind while life goes on and on without affection". Trying to counteract the mind/thought with thoughtlessness is going right along with the push & pull effect, yes we are chasing our own tails.  

Wednesday 14 May 2014

Spirituality and the Push and Pull effect


Written by Mathew Naismith

I had quite an interesting exchange with another person regarding my last post titled Love, lust and unconditional love. This person brought up a different perspective of the push and pull effect which I feel is similar to cause & effect, action reaction concept.  To me this person made so much sense so I thought I would share our exchange and this person’s perspective with all my readers.


Eddie
Lust is a movement of pulling or grasping. When there is a movement of pulling in front, obviously the back is pushing simultaneously, unconsciously rejecting while the front is consciously or subconsciously indulging. When there is neither movements but simply be with what is unconditionally, true love which was never born and will never dies in time reveals itself as one with all.

Me
Very well conversed +Eddie Lau, a very different perspective on this subject, thank you.

You could say to pull/push is of the creation of desire/lust.

Eddie
Mathew Naismith pull/push is desire/hatred, they are indeed two sides of a coin.

Mathew
Eddie Lau, lust seems like a fixated attachment, once we release ourselves of these fixations we are indeed free from the push/pull effect which is what I think causes an existence to become chaotic, it makes perfect sense. 

Eddie
Everything including lusts formed/solidified when there is an owner to claim them thinking they must be belonging to oneself out of delusions.

The moment we are free from any movement that creates resistance with the nature, no formation can ever create. Therefore everything is free without movement any perception of movement within the boundless space is delusion/illusion.

It is petty and pity to own something or everything within the nature for the sustenance of our happiness and existence not knowing we are already one with the nature of abundance when we own nothing including ourselves.

Mathew
Eddie Lau, once we realise we don't own anything including our thoughts, we are truly free from our own bondage's of this push & pull effect.

Our attachments to ownership causes us to rely on this bondage to be happy, it's sad. 

Most people aren't aware, once you release yourself from this bondage you don't have to look or try to buy happiness, it comes quite automatically.

I'm glad you made me aware of this push & pull effect Eddie, it makes so much sense to me. 



This discussion is still in progress however to keep the post to a reasonable length I’m stopping it here. 

Tuesday 13 May 2014

Love, Lust and Unconditional Love


Written by Mathew Naismith

I came across a discussion recently about love, lust and unconditional love; I thought I would post and share this on my blog.  Is love needed to create lust and can lust exist without love? How does unconditional love come into all this?


It would seem psychology puts them in the same basket, lust being created from love however love obviously doesn’t always create lust but it does create attachments.  


Having worked in the welfare arena, I worked with paedophiles at times; there lust is love to them, lust creates an attachment which turns to love. Most often paedophiles become quite fond of the children they abuse, clergy paedophiles are a good example of this however not all paedophiles abuse turns to love.  In this case it’s just pure lust creating an attachment to lust.   

I should point out, I don’t know how we are getting love & lust mixed up with unconditional love, most partners have conditions.

I said to my wife, if she ever finds anyone that also makes her happy you have my blessing to share yourself with them as well, this is unconditional love, if she is happy so am I, what else is there but my partners happiness?   This denotes an attachment to my wife’s happiness which in turn makes me happy, not just an attachment to my own happiness.  


We shouldn’t confuse this with the likes of wife swapping, wife swapping is very similar to paedophilia because like paedophiles lust creates an attachment but the attachment isn’t to love but lust itself, lust creating an attachment to lust.  This of course upsets a lot of wife swappers but there are similarities if they like it or not.