Thursday, 13 October 2016
Written by Mathew Naismith
It's absolutely mind boggling and daunting to anyone primarily of materialism, scientism and physicality, that any other reality from this physicality is delusional, especially realities that are non-physical within their representations. The mind for starters cannot exist outside from the human brain, the brain creates the mind, not the mind creates the brain. It's delusional that the mind (consciousness) could create the brain and that the mind (consciousness) can exist outside the physical brain matter however.
Spiritually aware people have a perception of a reality that is not of this physicality, it's the reverse perception of a person who is primarily of the perception of physicality, nothing else could possibly exist but a reality based on physical perceptions. This reverse perception by spiritually aware people is based on the kinds of concepts shown below.
Extract: This is consistent with a new theory of consciousness being advocated by physicist Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff. Penrose and Hameroff a;sp suggest that consciousness is something applied to the brain, not generated by it.
Extract: Yet whatever ideas are put forward, one thorny question remains: How can something as immaterial as consciousness ever arise from something as unconscious as matter?
The following has no religious undertones, I feel it's stating that everything has a conscious consciousness behind it.
Non-physicality: This is but a few examples of why spiritually aware people feel that physicality is not the only reality that exists, in actuality, physicality could be but a by-product of these non-physical realities. Just because we are unable to measure non-physical realities using physical means, doesn't make them non-existence, this is where our own intuition and feelings come into it. It all makes sense, to measure anything of a physical reality, you use physical means, to measure or become aware of non-physical realities, you us non-physical means. To a spiritually aware person, their is no question that non-physical realities do indeed exist.
Now what about these delusional spiritually aware people creating realities based on non-physical realities, it's all about love, peace, meditating, oneness, tranquillity and so on, it's all delusional is it not as they themselves create these realities?
Did we not create our own modern day reality through conscious thought and reasoning to create the physical reality we have today? Why couldn't a non-physical reasoning process create non-physical realities that are just as real, if not more real, than the creation of physical realities?
To a spiritually aware person of peace and love, the physical world around them is anything but peaceful and loving, so to put balance back into their lives, they create realities that are based on these things lacking in the environment around them. This of course gives them a feeling of balance which helps them better cope with the environment around them. It's also psychologically beneficial to balance out an obvious destructive reality with a constructive reality.
Creation: There is of course a question of creation, to a spiritually aware person, everything was created from this non-physical reality/consciousness that has been proven to exist as shown above. It's the brain that was created from a non-physical entities, not the brain that created these non-physical entities that are usually judged as being delusional.
In actuality, spiritually aware people know that all of what is physical, was created from non-physical entities, a consciousness (mind) that has no physical representation of form except in relation to physical realities. Basically, it's physical realities that prove that non-physical entities and realities do indeed exist, not the other way around, in the existence of physical realities.
It's funny to think, it certainly looks as though the brains mind was created from non-physical means, a consciousness of creation, this means physical realities prove the existence of non-physical entities and realities, a consciousness void of physical form....
Wednesday, 22 June 2016
Written by Mathew Naismith
Bare with me on this, it gets quite interesting and informative, This is probably one of my most impartial posts I've ever written, at first this isn't apparent though.
Atheism: While on a particular site, it was obvious I was being bullied by an atheist who didn't want to know if any of my perceptions were valid or not, basically, from the start this person had a preconceived perception, nothing I was going to say was going to change this fixated perception based on atheistic ideologies. There was no point from the start in a continuous discussion on anything remotely intellectual that was of my perception but I persevered.
Even when evidence was obtained from various sources backing my perceptions, I was still called a liar, in actuality, once I provided such evidence, this person became even more noticeably aggressive to the eventual point of using harassment and bullying tactics. The sources I supplied included, quantum physics, psychiatry and philosophy perspectives endorsing my perceptions. The main problem was, if I was remotely correct in my perceptions that a consciousness can indeed exist outside of the brain, it immediately questions the beliefs of atheism. Now this brings us to atheism being a belief and even a belief system that is purely based on fear alone.
I then posted a post inferring that atheism is a belief system by using the definition from a dictionary as follow, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God". What followed was astonishing to say the least, they were defending their atheism in the same exact way that a religious person with extreme ideologies would. I am talking from actual experiences here. Lets collate some evidence together to get a better picture of this.
1: The dictionaries state clearly it's of doctrines and a belief
2: These atheists defended their atheism to the same degree a religious person with extreme ideologies would, stooping to unbelievable depths to do so
3: If their science is unable to prove the existence of God either way, this clearly means atheism isn't based on facts but assumptions and speculations
4: Seen as atheism is not based on facts, it must be based on assumptions and speculations
5: To have such a blind faith in assumptions and speculations, means atheism is also of faith. This of course depends on the faith an atheist has in regards to pure assumptions and speculations. In this case and other cases where I approached atheists on the same matter, they reacted as if they had utter blind faith of atheism which is purely based on, not facts, but assumptions and speculations.
6: Faith clearly infers a belief. Definition of faith: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. Is not science controlling our destiny?
7: Fear: A belief in an ism (atheism) opposing another ism, such as religion, denotes a reaction that infers fear. Why follow an opposing ism if one is not fearful of another ism?
8: With the reactions I had received from atheists on this site and other sites, they fear there atheism being questioned in anyway what so ever
9: If atheism is the be and end all, why express so much fear resulting in uncivil behaviour? If atheism were of facts, what would they have to fear when atheistic beliefs are questioned? Atheists obviously know that atheism can be questioned but they still stick to atheism as if it's the be and end all, a clear depiction of utter blind faith and dogmatism.
I think all the evidence that has been collated here, infers that atheism is indeed a belief system and based purely on fear, a fear that purposely stays ignorant to any other perceptions not of atheistic beliefs because of fear. Consider this, don't atheists often criticise religion for expressing these same traits that atheists obviously express as well? You can then add hypocritical to their biases. I should point out in all fairness, not all atheists are like this, some atheists, very few it would seem, are quite open minded, they just don't believe in a God or divine entities but I have found out some of them do believe in a consciousness existing beyond the brain.
Science; like atheism, is purely based on assumptions and speculations, there are no facts in science, if there were, science would be dogmatic within their concepts, science can't be this dogmatic because science knows that the whole of existence evolves and changes, there can be no fixated concepts which means no utter facts. This of course doesn't stop people into science stating that science is about facts which of course infers dogmas, a fixated preconception of concepts and perceptions that can no longer be further proved. This analogy of course is again only an assumption.
General science might be fixated to these facts (dogmas) but quantum physics and metaphysics isn't, when two protons can communicate, not just interact, between each other, physicists know that consciousness isn't just of the brain. Consider this also, what caused the human brain to grow bigger over time, was it the brain miraculously growing bigger through evolution for some reason or was it consciousness causing the brain to grow bigger over time? Our brain grew because of our expanding consciousness, not our consciousness grew because of our expanding brain, conscious awareness causes the brain to grow, this is well known in science to occur. Consciousness before the brain...
Let's take this further, science can now computer emulate creating a mini-universe, did this not take a creative consciousness to do this? This infers that the universe we exist in, could have been created by a consciousness way beyond human comprehension, in actuality, some scientists believe that is exactly what occurred. It's a good idea to do your own research on this, you just might come across something I didn't. I don't want to detract from what you discover through my own perceptions, this is well known to occur.
New Age spirituality; is also based on fear, the fear of fearing and the fear of being in judgement and the fear of expressing the ego altogether. To know that fear is of being of fear, one has to judge what is and isn't fear. What makes us feel fear? A judgment of fear when fear can be highly beneficial to making us more aware. It's a bit silly denouncing fear when it can be so beneficial to us if used correctly.
How often do new age spiritually aware people denounce religion as being based on fear? Is this also not of judgment and slightly hypocritical? How often do these same people judge science as being some how of a lower vibration or less worthy in some way to their own beliefs? Consider this, is not all of what was created, from the same source of energy? Isn't everything of this source therefore worthy within it's own right? Everything has equal value, this also includes atheism and agnosticism.
Religion: The way religion is expressed by church leaders, especially in the west, can be totally based of fear at times, the bible can also be interpreted as being based on fear and on fables. The bible however can be interpreted in many different ways. I found if you read the bible as a non-fiction book, the bible makes no sense until you read it as a fiction book. When you read the bible as a friction book, you begin to become aware of the hidden meaning of the bible which then refer to a book based on non-fiction. The bible is encoded and if you are unable to read in symbols, the bible will stay a fiction book based on fear and fables. It's very difficult to read something that is of the infinite with finite perceptions.
All these isms and ideologies are based on assumptions and speculations, a person into science or atheism might say that science is more of factual assumptions and speculations than religion or any other ideology, of course a religious person would state otherwise. People into science/atheism and religion might also state that their ism and ideology are more than assumptions and speculations but this is purely based on their own perceptions, not on other perceptions. In actuality, no ism or ideology is more worthy than another when they were all created from the same source.
How many isms actually concur impartially to all this? Very few because each ism has it's own fixated preconceived perceptions based on their own perceptions. It's preconceived because usually each ism has it's own perceptions, anything out side these perceptions are usually denounced as being somehow less worthy of consideration.
The point is, everything was created from an infinite source of energy, facts however are of a finite perception because they have limitations where assumptions and speculations are infinite. For any ism or ideology to proclaim their of facts, their actually stating their perceptions are only of the finite, religious people and atheists mistakenly, in my mind, do this on a regular basis, especially when they are in opposing opposition with one another. It's this act of opposing that causes a consciousness to perceive primarily in the finite, which to me is always going to lead to conflict, this I believe will only stop when we start to perceive in the infinite. In a religious/spiritual sense, this infinite represents the connection to the source of all creation known to many as God or the source of all creation, I'm not sure if atheism and science have a name for this infinite source of energy but matter itself, matter and anti-matter.
Wednesday, 4 May 2016
Written by Mathew Naismith
We often have a perception of true spirituality being one that sits, eats and exercises in just the right way, according to certain perceptions, which are governed by a certain ideology or ideas of what is and isn't spiritual. I am however going to bring forth a different perception on this which obviously isn't going to go down too well with certain people. I'm going to state that we couldn't be more of a higher expression of connectedness to our truer being if we wanted to within this reality.
Firstly, as of many people, at the most traumatising times of my life have I experienced a true sense of enlightenment, my wife has also experienced the same thing when in traction. Trauma of course being the complete opposite to a calm harmonious collective state of being. Now consider our present collective human consciousness.....how traumatised is this state at present? We couldn't be more expressive of a higher state of being if we wanted to.
It's important not to look at the human collective consciousness as a separate part of our own collective consciousness either, look at it as one consciousness, this is a truer sense of oneness. Yes, the ego wants to separate one kind of consciousness from another as it often deems one inferior to itself, remembering that the ego is all about creating delusions and illusions.
I'm sitting back and observing the human consciousness and all I can see is an enlightening experience as oneself would personally experience in trauma. We, as a collective, couldn't be going through more of an enlightening experience if we tried.
I think at this point it's wise to know what spirituality actually means. To me, spirituality is in reference to the spirit within all things, it's like in 3rd dimensions carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen are the base elements in all living things. Spirituality is the base element within all things, basically, the sixth sense, a sense that is mostly only felt as a feeling in a 3rd dimensional reality. To me, the spirit within all things is of all senses and at the same time of no senses, this is because once a consciousness becomes aware of all senses being as one, this awareness negates the purpose of senses.
If spirituality is in reference to all things, biologically living or not, everything we do is in accordance with being spiritual, this is why so many in trauma can experience their most awakening times. However in stating this, a lot of people also experience their most awakening/enlightening times while in total harmony, it seems to take extreme disharmony and utter harmony to experience our most awakening times in our life. Are extremes needed to awaken us? It would seem so but why?
I think the more a consciousness is unaware of the spirit with in all things, the more extreme of an experience is needed to awaken itself to the spirit within all things. Are we at present, on a collective scale, that unaware considering the trauma and the extremes that are being expressed in this reality?
Now let's consider a reality void of extremes, basically, a balance between yin and yang for example. We, within our present state of extremes, would think any consciousness within such a balanced reality wouldn't experience any sort of awakening, this couldn't be further from the truth. When you consider that the spirit is within all things, within a balanced reality, all things automatically become one, within this reality, there is no extremes because extremes have no purpose, in actuality, in this kind of balanced reality, it's impossible for any consciousness to express any kind of extreme.
We so often believe harmony is more spiritual than disharmony, harmony is more conductive to spiritual awareness and wisdom but at the same time being aware of an opposite as in disharmony. How much of a balance do we have when we segregate harmony from disharmony, yin from yang? The more we separate the yin from the yang, the more extreme our experiences have to be to become spiritually aware.
I'm very accepting of my harmony as I am of my disharmony, however, I do often allow extremes to also influence me, this influence is all to do with our conditioning to extremes and an imbalanced reality. I also try not to judge this as being one thing or another either, it just is the way it is within realities like this one.
I wrote a post about flat lining some time ago, flat lining isn't to do with dying but a state of far less motion, therefore extremes, thus the flat line. This flat line indicates perfect balance, and yes, harmony, for once balance is obtained by a consciousness, harmony automatically becomes that realities prime influence, In this case, there is no need for a consciousness to experience extremes to become spiritually aware of the spirit within all things.
A true sense of spirituality isn't experiencing extremes, it's experiencing balance which automatically creates a reality of harmony, in actuality, harmony and disharmony become one thus we feel the feeling of harmony.......perfect balance.
While holidaying in nature recently, there was no need for me to experience an extreme awakening, as I stated in my last post, my home environment is just as awaking and harmonious. You could say my wife and I experience balance between our home environment and nature, there is no separation or segregation between these two realities.
Saturday, 16 January 2016
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.
Saturday, 2 January 2016
Written by Mathew Naismith
Is spirituality about perfection, do we not practice in various spiritual practices to become more aligned and in tune with our truer inner being? In actuality no, this would be like saying able people are more of perfection than disabled people, having the opportunity to work with disabled people, this couldn't be further from the truth. What actually defines what is and isn't a depiction of perfection or a true connection to the inner self? The answer to this question is simple, only a consciousness controlled by a controlling ego could perceive and judge what is and isn't a true depiction of perfection.
Consider this, how many people have experienced a true inner connection when in trauma, a state of anything but being aligned? You certainly don't have to sit, eat, drink, sleep and exercise in the right way to experience an inner connection, and in actuality, anyone who judges anyone else of being of a lesser value in anyway because their not, in their own perception, doing the right thing, can actually become disconnected, not more connected. The reason for this is simple, control, they inadvertently use the controlling ego to take control, it's all about control like the churches were in the Dark Ages, it's same mentality believe it or not!!
I am good friends with an 80 year old yoga teacher who is into the science, spirituality and exercises of yoga, at times I have to earth her, meaning, her ego can also get away from her, at times quite excessively. This is quite understandable as any ideology that makes us feel more superior and/or better within oneself, can, at times, become dominated by a controlling ego, this can occur unbeknown to ourselves. As human history quite plainly shows us, any spiritual ideology perceived and enacted in a certain way, will actually encourage the ego to become more controlling, not less controlling. Of course any sense of control is a sign of the ego being in control, not our truer being, this is because our truer being is anything but controlling, if it was controlling, we wouldn't be here experiencing such a chaotic existence for starters!!
I actually surround myself with what certain spiritually aware people would judge as being imperfect in some way because they don't, in their own perception, do the right thing to become truly spiritual, in other words, perfect, in some sense, over and above other people. The reason I surround myself, with what is judged as being imperfections, is to become less judgmental of what is and isn't a depiction of perfection. I'm not allowing my controlling ego to control my perceptions of what is and isn't a depiction of a perfect spiritual aware person, in actuality, a perfect spiritually aware persons just doesn't exist.
Some people might say that God's consciousness or people like Jesus and Buddha were perfect, if such consciousness were to be in this way, would they not judge an able person being more worthy than a disabled person!!
Having to sit, eat, drink, sleep and exercise in the right way, gives us a sense of what is and isn't a more worthy way to exist and become connected to our truer self, in other words a perception of a more perfect existence. However, a perception of perfection is always a sign of the ego in control for only an ego would judge what is and isn't a depiction of perfection!! Jesus and Buddha weren't about perfection, yes I know, the ego tells us otherwise, this is something we need to all become aware of if we want to exist in a more harmonious existence.
Earthing: Earthing ourselves is important if we want a truer sense of awareness, if our perception isn't earthed, it then becomes the domain of the controlling ego so it's important to earth ourselves. I actually have a natural tendency to earth, not just myself but others around me, this can even occur unknowingly to myself hence natural.....
This of course doesn't always go down well, the controlling ego often repels or disregards any sense off earthing mainly because the ego then losses control through the earthing process, this is the last thing a controlling ego wants to occur.
At first, my yoga friend most always repels my earthing of her until she reawakens the aspects of the ego in control. It matters not how connected and infallible to the controlling ego you think you are, it's wise to know that the controlling ego is always waiting right outside the door to once again take control in such a reality. Don't get the wrong idea about my yoga friend, I actually brew a particular beer for her and she also drinks wine, to a number of other yoga people, this would be taboo and not a sign of a true person heavily into yoga. Of course only an ego in control would judge so!!
I don't know of anyone who doesn't love or like my yoga friend in some way, she certainly has away about her probably because she earths herself. I of course also help with this earthing but if she wasn't also earthed in some way, she would totally and always repel my natural earthing abilities. We can so easily lose ourselves in the ego while heavily involved in any ideology, once again, human history quite plainly shows this.
Most spiritual ideologies tell us to refrain from certain practices not conductive to becoming spiritually connected, these practices are often linked to the ego in control. For example, any drinking of alcohol is a sign of weakness in regards to the ego, if you have to drink alcohol for any reason, this is a sign of the ego being in control, you also have no self-empowerment/control. This of course pertains more to excessive drinking than social drinking, believe it or not, social and even excessive drinking can be earthing. The reason for this is simple, as we become more connected to our truer self through various spiritual practices, the more earthing we need, no one earthing process is more or less worthy than another. Your present environment will tell you what is the best earthing process for you, it's wise to try to not strictly go by what certain spiritual ideologies tells you to do, in other word go with the flow of the environment you are presently in is my advice.
Enlightening Experiences: Consider this, how much control do you have while going through excessive trauma? Most often none, if you did, you wouldn't' be going through such traumas in the first place.
Why do so many people expedience their most enlightening times while going through such excessive trauma? Excessive trauma takes away our control, I think this is why we can experience these enlightening moments, you can however also experience an enlightenment (an awakening) while excessively in control. It would seem it takes extremes to experience an awakening experience, this is because any extremes will bring on an extreme experience!!
Any extreme however has a down side which is usually created through a controlling ego, the down side to extremes is of course a controlling ego controlling you. All of a sudden you are enlightened and know it all, this enlightening experience is the be and end all but in reality it's not, not for everyone. The ideology that has also brought on such an experience, also becomes the be and end all for everyone, this again is not the case. We see the light, we perceive perfection, yes, even the light we experience isn't perfection as an actual form of perfection just doesn't exist within spirituality. Yes, to a controlling ego there is perfection, this means able people are more worthy or white people are more worthy than black people!!
To perceive perfection in spirituality is a sign the ego is still in control, its truly this simple.
Tuesday, 22 December 2015
Written by Mathew Naismith
I've been receiving some interesting responses to my last two posts on my blog, the finite and infinite perspectives are certainly giving us different perceptions. On one side, we have the consciousness of science stating that infinite consciousness is a consciousness in delusion. On the other side we have consciousness of spirituality stating that finite consciousness is a consciousness in an illusion......Science minded and spiritually aware people are stating that each other is in a delusional or an illusional state of consciousness!!
In actuality, both illusions and the delusions exist but not to the extent of the obvious bias being expressed by either side, both the infinite and the finite has it's place, to me this is obvious.
The following is an interesting reply to my last post.....
Hi Mathew I read the blog but still find myself confused at your understanding of truer self and the deception of science and the spiritual nature of the truer self as you put it. I'm not sure what it is you are trying to get across. Do you have a special different understanding of everything compared to the two mentioned above? If so can you explain it so that clarity can be given to that theory. I'm not trying to criticise just would love to see where your thoughts are taking you as it feels a bit off the mark if I'm honest.
Finding other people's perceptions questionable, is all about trying to be aware beyond your own perceptions, this can also include being aware beyond human perceptions at times. Trying to perceive beyond your own perceptions isn't, to me, being critical Damon, it's quite cool.
Truer Self: Look at your truer self being everything that is infinite, it's a state of being that has no boundaries of the finite, in other words a starting and ending point, it's basically a state of eternalness. In most religions this was portrayed through the knowing of a God and/or Goddesses or anything portraying an eternal aspect. We have always had a connection with our eternal self through spirituality in one sense or another. It's obvious to me there is something to the infinite self, why would so many people express such an interest in the infinite if it didn't have some kind of truth about it? We have obviously felt a connection to the infinite self, our truer or inner self/being.
Science: If I at all portrayed science being of deception, I'm sorry for that, this was not my intentions. Science is of the finite awareness, an awareness based on finite perspectives where's spirituality is based on infinite perspectives. Within any ideology or concept, it's not the ideology or concept that becomes deceptive, it's the people behind such conscious perceptions.
Spirituality = infinite + eternal states of consciousness + infinite awareness
Science = finite + transitory states of consciousness + finite awareness
It's interesting how general science preconceives that consciousness also dies when the human self dies!!
Don't be mistaken that these two quite different perspectives don't come together, they often do when a consciousness using such perceptions has no biases/boundaries to contend with. Some of the newer sciences of today use both finite and infinite perspectives as they did before modern day science. I think using both perspectives certainly seems to give us wisdom. This wisdom comes about by perceiving that there are no true boundaries, therefore, there are no preconceptions.
To me, it is obvious why we are lacking wisdom today, we have set up boundaries and biases between infinite and finite conscious perceptions and being. A truly wise person never preconceives what is and isn't, they always stay open to any possibility beyond their own perceptions.
Damon, you yourself have expressed this through querying a perception different to your own......It's not easy staying open to perceptions we have no idea of , only in the wise will we observe this.
Note: The discussion between Damon and myself is still in progress, I will update this post in accordance with our discussion.
Actually that helped thank you I agree with your explanation
Thursday, 29 January 2015
Written by Mathew Naismith
I think it’s important to be personally aware of the way we use spirituality either it be passive, active or both, why is this so important to become aware of this? Confusion for starters, you can’t use passive and active intention at the same exact time and when we do, it causes all sorts of confusion. You can however use passive intentions immediately after using active intentions or visa-versa. The bellow information will help with this confusion in regard to the difference between active and passive spirituality.
Extract: While some people continue to experience spiritual awareness passively, it makes more sense to actively pursue spiritual growth.
Meditation, Prayer, Visualization, Stretching, Yoga, Dreamwork is supposed to be about active intentions where passive intentions is more about just letting our spirituality just flow brought about by our daily experiences with few intentions. It’s not quite correct that these practices only denote active intentions, visualising for example can come to anyone at any time, I’ve experienced this many times myself. Within this we have no intentions there for it’s not an active intention; it’s not about active spirituality but passive spirituality.
Active spirituality has more to do with forcing an experience rather than going along with the experiences in our daily lives. Another thing to consider is, what experiences we have in our daily lives is more to do with a need rather than a desire, living for a need is all about passive spirituality, this is saying that active spirituality is more to do with desire than a need.
I don’t think we experience anything by chance, everything that happens within our lives happens for a purpose, forcing such experiences to occur only goes along with what man has done right throughout history, forcing our intentions on all around us which has only created a lot of chaos and destruction. Man’s intentions have always been about desire, is that the way we want to continue?
Let’s look at sages, shamans and Buddha and Jesus, did and do they not use active spirituality to become aware and well connected to their inner selves? There is one fundamental difference between sages, shamans and Buddha, Jesus; yes they all allowed their daily experiences to determine their intentions, this denotes passive intentions, but sages and shamans and alike also induce these experiences through various practices, Jesus and Buddha had no such intentions I feel.
Buddha and Jesus, especially Buddha who we know often meditated, to us obviously used active spirituality by using such practices like mediation, this is a clear indication of active spiritualty but that isn’t so.
I and many other people like me can go into a daydream state at any time and at times this can lead to a deep mediative state, this is accomplished without any intentions what so ever, some people can just go straight into a deep meditative state by just going with the flow of their environment. This can eventually be accomplished through active intentions but what I am saying is, Buddha and Jesus didn’t have to use active intentions and I don’t think they needed too from the very start. What they did is allow their environment, without being in judgement of, to determine their states of consciousness quite automatically.
It’s not just about being one with yourself but one with all that is around you no matter what it is without judgement. A lot of people have a hard enough time becoming one with themselves, becoming one with our entire environment that we ourselves are experiencing seems utterly daunting and unachievable but it’s not, Jesus and Buddha are good example of this.
Everything that you experience in your life has the capacity to teach you to become aware through passive spirituality like it did for Jesus and Buddha, yes active intentions can and do work but active intentions have a down side to it, it’s not going with the flow of life and it’s about a desire not a need. Ask yourself, did Buddha and Jesus live their lives on desires? You could say they desired to help others but it was more of a need than a desire, the need of the collective.
I’m not sure to this day why we are not listening to the greatest spiritual teachers of all times, is it primarily to do with the ego, seen as to desire is of the ego, or is it we relate these great teachers to a religion? It would seem our disdain for religion and our egos are holding us back big time; to be anything like Jesus or Buddha, we need to go beyond our own personal desires as did Jesus and Buddha.
If you dropped your intentions and judgement, you will find you will automatically go into meditative states without any intentions, this is our natural state, believe it or not I feel it’s not natural for us to have intentions, yes it seems natural for our human selves to have intentions but it’s not for our inner selves, our Jesus and Buddha selves.
To accomplish our desires and even our needs we need intentions or do we??? We have lived under intentions for so long we have no idea how to exist without intentions; I think this is quite amusing.
Do I live without intentions? No, I’m actually going with the flow but I am aware of what our intentions have created and keep on creating. I have actually stopped myself from going into deep meditative states, this was my intention brought on by my present environment which is all about intentions. My intentions is to not go into deep meditative states which other people have the intention to go into, it’s still intentions either way. So in all that is what most of us are doing, we are going with the flow, however, this flow is becoming increasingly destructive only because we are now unaware of how to exist without intentions. We are not living within our environment but have intentions of what our environment should be, this isn’t going with the flow of our natural environment but against it.
How do we stop being so much about intentions? This is simple, just be, in every moment you get think of just being, yes this is still expressing passive intentions but it’s not about desire but a need. Just being within the present moment without intentions and judgement is quite uplifting and a very passive way to become one with all of what is, eventually you will just automatically be within the present moment at any time. Yes humanly you will still be expressive of intentions but within yourself, in your own space, you will have lost your intentions, you would have found out how to exist without intentions.
Wednesday, 28 January 2015
Written by Mathew Naismith
Extract: Spirituality is a process of personal transformation, either in accordance with traditional religious ideals, or, increasingly, oriented on subjective experience and psychological growth independently of any specific religious context. In a more general sense, it may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity or blissful experience. There is no single, widely-agreed definition for the concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
Spiritualism is quite different to spirituality, or being spiritual, in that spiritualism is more defined to the actual belief and communication with spirit’s/ghosts, this also includes reincarnation.
Extract: 1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not material; supernatural: spiritual power.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul: spiritual guidance; spiritual growth.
3. Not concerned with material or worldly things: led a spiritual life.
4. Of or belonging to a religion; sacred: spiritual practices; spiritual music.
The thing about being spiritual is it’s not supposed to be about material or worldly things but we are often taught to manifest for our own desires, this is brought about by spirituality also being about meaningful activities and blissful experiences. There seems to be also a definable difference here between being spiritually aware and being actually spiritual in oneself. I often defined myself in being spiritually aware, full stop but that actually isn’t the case as for a lot of us who are not focused on our own blissful experiences.
Let’s take a look at sages, shamans, Jesus and Buddha for an example, are they defined as being spiritually aware or spiritual in oneself or both? These people conducted themselves in many meaningful activities and had many blissful experiences; this must make them spiritually aware rather than being spiritual in oneself?
What does it take to manifest for our own desires? Awareness, now what does it take to being spiritual in oneself? A lot more than just being aware, Jesus, Buddha, sages and shamans didn’t become aware overnight, it can take many hours of mental and/or physical pain, and like Jesus, they can take that pain with them to the very end, they are certainly not about manifesting for one’s desires.
I’ve never manifested for my own desires since I’ve become aware some 40 years ago, I’ve actually done the opposite many times over to assist others, in this time all my needs, as opposed to desires, have been met to one degree or another . In this time I have also had many blissful experiences and many not so blissful experiences, I have not once manifested for such experiences blissful or not.
Now you could say people like Jesus and Buddha manifested for their own blissful experiences and yes they would have had many. As you become aware you experience many blissful moments, however, to a person who is being spiritual in oneself, these moments aren’t manifested, they are part of being spiritual in oneself, this also includes experiencing not so blissful moments as well.
These people didn’t just fixate themselves in feeling blissful as they became aware, they experienced everything to do with being spiritual in oneself rather than being spiritually aware. Is there anything wrong in just being spiritually aware? There is nothing wrong in this it’s just not being spiritual in oneself.
Being spiritually aware is just about human development not spiritual development; becoming spiritually aware can help us to become aware of our own spirit, this is until we experience something that’s not so blissful, at this point we choose to only be in bliss. You could imagine if Jesus and Buddha did this, they would have stopped at just being spiritually aware and not gone on to being spiritual within themselves.
Is it worth becoming being spiritual within oneself and should everyone try to become spiritual in this way?
I can experience the most traumatic times and deal with the most obviously destructive people and still come out on top all the times, this is mainly due to realising that everyone has their own path to follow no matter how destructive that might be. This actually answers the second question, “Should everyone try to become spiritual in this way?” Not if these experiences are not a part of your own path. If you are fixated to just feeing bliss, that is your path, there are no right or wrong paths just different experiences.
There is something I feel we need to be aware of though, religion has time and time again made the same mistake in manifesting for it’s own desires which in the long run created even more disharmony. I see so many people today doing the exact same thing, yes it sounds good to manifest for our own desires but it also sounded good when the various religions and churches made it sound good as well. Everything is consciousness and we think we can manipulate it as we like to our own desires; we seem to be forgetting the cause and effect, action reaction, push and pull.
Pulling something in that feel like bliss to push something out that doesn’t feel like bliss is rejection, there is no acceptance here when everything is consciousness including what we are rejecting. You don’t have to pull something in to push something out that is less desirable, this is active intentions. Passive intentions take one to change what seems undesirable to something more constructive, something that is more needed than desired. A more constructive way to exist has become a need not a desire.
Buddha and Jesus felt a need that needed to be met, they didn’t feel a desire, desire would have taken to be of active intentions, pushing and pulling, rejection. They didn’t reject anything; they changed this destructive consciousness within themselves through a need not through a desire. I said within themselves because it’s always within ourselves, we are not a separate consciousness, consciousness is consciousness no matter what, it’s all of the same consciousness, this is why it seems strange to me why so many people reject any part of this conciseness to pull in a more desirable conscious experience .
Like Jesus, Buddha, sages and shaman, all you have to do is change this consciousness not reject it for something more blissful , what you have rejected doesn’t go away, as human history quite plainly shows us, but what we change can last forever if we do it for a need rather than a desire.
Wednesday, 26 November 2014
Written by Mathew Naismith
This is an interesting conversation that has gone off on a slightly different tangent, it started off with the question, “Are You Standing In Your Authentic Power and Grace?’, and is at present on the topic of power. My stand is that power is about control when in spirituality we should be releasing control not gaining thus lessening the effects of chaos upon us which is brought about through a continues action reaction process. The opposite stand is that feeling and being powerful in oneself is good and positive.
I believe 'power' is all about soul-strength-its a vitality of the soul -our inner strength.
Feeling powerful is in reaction to when we are not feeling powerful, it's an action reaction, cause and effect, push and pull effect, if we were always powerful, we wouldn't know if we were powerful or not without a difference telling us that we are powerful. This means we always need something less powerful to make us feel powerful which brings in judgment to what is or isn't less or more powerful.
This is actually saying, when we are feeling power and control over what we are interacting with, we are not truly powerful at this point, it's only because of our continuous reactions to other things around us that make us feel powerful when actually were obviously not. If one needs to react to actions to actually be powerful, it's obviously were not powerful at all, yes it feels that way only because of the influences of the ego.
A continuous action reaction only causes chaos and gives a feeling of being powerful because we feel we have more control. Power is all about control, to me a true spiritualist would not be controlling in any sense. You could say when a spiritualist focuses, that is them trying to take control when in fact they are trying to release control not become more controlling or even powerful.
A lot of people in my mind make this mistake when they are trying to focus while meditating, praying, chanting or whatever, they think they are trying to become more controlling not less. When we focus in any spiritual practice, it should always be about releasing control not gaining it. Gaining control and power is all about the ego, we don’t want power and control over the ego, we want to release the ego of it’s controlling effects, that is all. In other words stop or ease the action reaction within our lives and in turn releasing the effects of chaos upon us individually and collectively.
Thank you very much Mr Mathew Naismith !
I agree War Lords use " Power " to acquire ,require , usurp , devoid of any concerns of their action ! Their intention is not sober, but gobbler ! In spiriritual philosophy , POWER is considered , as endowed by God, just to help all needy ! Here this Power works as a postman to deliver the money orders, parcels etc intended to the addresee , The Power , though has the desire to to misappropriate , dares not do it for fear, whereas War Lords do not have any such qualms, like wild hungry beasts let loose in the crowded market ! Can we condone it as it is the power; just we cannot help !
Thank you for raising new arena for discussion !
An interesting way in putting it, I love your collation here.
Do we condone all sense of power because power in certain circumstances can produce a destructive mentality thus creating even more chaos? We certainly can’t just say power is just negative or positive, this is why I try to avoid such words however at times that can’t be avoided when appropriate to the meaning of a discussion like this one.
Is feeling powerful authentic to actually being powerful within oneself? I don’t think so, if I was truly powerful I wouldn’t need anything less powerful to compare myself with to feel powerful, I would just be powerful within myself however, I wouldn’t know of myself being this powerful because I am no longer needing to compare and judged what is or isn’t more or less powerful to feel powerful in the first place.
I don’t look at anything being any less important or worthy than anything else therefore how would I feel powerful in the first place. To me when the ego is controlling, this has no less value or importance than if I was totally and wholly spiritual within my whole being, to do this I would have to be in judgment thus of the controlling ego .
Are humans more powerful than an ant? It is obvious we are within our physical stature alone so we have judged we have more value, this in my mind gives us a false impression we are more powerful than an ant, this is all about human mentality not spiritual mentality. Spiritual mentality to me is about one having no less value than another no matter what it is. Yes it’s very hard to think this way because we are conditioned to only perceive through human mentalities not spiritual mentalities. We are obviously more powerful than an ant because we have humanly judged so, now use a spiritual mentality, we will find this isn’t the case at all, we truly have no more value than an ant.
The word power to me just doesn’t belong in spirituality but that’s just my opinion.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
Written by Mathew Naismith
I had an interesting discussion with a bloke in relation to my last post titled, Subjective and Objective Analysis, it seems I didn’t explain myself too well. The post wasn’t about being anti-subjective thinking, which is analysing through feelings, but balancing out our subjective analysis when we have distaste for something we are analysing. To me the world at present is a good example of how subjective analysis of each other is distorting our reality making it more volatile, all I am saying is in this situation, we need to use more objective analysis to balance out our over emotional reactions. Hopefully the following will elaborate on this a little further starting off with this blokes queries of my last post in question.
I do not believe we disagree on the general thrust of your claims. I take issue solely with one claim: the imaginary possibility of objectivity as a perspective from which we may safely acquire knowledge. There is no other perspective than the one into which we are thrown. Mood or emotion is part of our experience, as it is with our memory. It may no more be extracted and preserve the original experience than we may detach ourselves from our bodies and imagine that experience is possible without them (dreams, perhpas, although they will still reference the body and the physical sphere). That emotions can cloud our judgment or distort what we are seeing is not being denied. What is denied is that we can (or should) be without emotion in the appropriation of experience that becomes knowledge. We achieve critical distance from our emotions and biases by re-examination of our experiences and by making conscious that lens by which we came to understand this or that experience.
It sounds like a claim doesn't it, it's just a generalization brought about by my own observation.
I don't think we are disagreeing as a whole, we just don’t see each other’s perspectives on this matter that is all.
Emotions are a part of how we learn, there is no doubt to that however, what the post is about is analysing something we are anti to, if we are analysing anything we have distaste for, what I’m am stating is subjective analysis will distort our feeling even more where’s objective analysis will balance out such feelings. We don’t need to add more fire to the fire for the fire to burn, it’s burning quite well on it’s own, the world at present, with it’s subjective analysing, is to me quite clearly showing how subjective thought is emotionally distorting reality.
Subjective analysis is about analysing a wrong or right, black and white, if we are too emotional when we analyse in this way, we will over exemplify what actually is. Yes, in a situation where we are not showing distaste, subjective analysis works fine but what I am saying, if we are showing distaste to something we are analysing we will distort reality, the truth. As soon as we show distaste, we quite automatically use subjective analysis instead of objective analysis, in my mind we need to be more aware of this.
I’m not anti-subjective thinking but the post is about subjective and objective analysis when in distaste of anything we analyse.
The funny thing is, spirituality takes away the black and white judgment of subjective analysing when using subjective analysis, this in turn gives us more of balance between subjective and objective thought however, I might not be totally correct in this analysis but I think I’m close to it. Being spiritually aware, feelings become a major part of our lives and that is what we analyse through however in this case because we are spiritually aware and non-judgemental, the black and white are not judged as being opposite to each other or opposing each other. Because we are not judging, we are less likely to be influenced by our over exemplified emotions allowing us to be as objective as we are subjective within our analysis giving us balance.
There is also big difference between emotions and feelings when spiritually aware; we actually become less emotional even though at times it seems to be the other way around. What we feel makes us emotional but the feelings themselves aren’t emotional, they create emotions within us through us opening to such inner feelings but these feelings aren’t themselves emotional. How do we become less emotional? We end up taking these feelings within our stride, in other words we become less emotional about these feelings the more they become the norm. Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t take away the feelings we get and in actual fact the more the normal these feelings are to us the more we will feel.
It is quite interesting observing how spiritualty quite automatically balances out the way we subjectively and objectively analyse, this kind of mentality dispels fanatical thinking, a thought process that over exemplifies it’s opposites causing further chaos. We no longer see extremes but a reality of similarities brought about by our inner feelings that are no longer emotionally controlled or choke by such emotions, we become balanced with our truer selves. There is no longer a struggle between the push and pull effect, subjective objective analysis.
Yes I could be incorrect with this analysis however I could also be correct, each to their own perspective.
Supplement: My Reply
This is why I concurred with what was written in the link supplied that referred to the psychological aspects of this, instead of just analysing through objective analysis, they need to also analyse through subjective analysis. This is turn balances out the analysis between objective and subjective thought giving us a better evaluation.
What you seem to be saying is you deny such equivocation exist, there is no separation between subjective and objective thought, this is true to an extent. To us this separation exists, that is true, however in true reality this separation doesn’t exist, but we don’t exist in a true reality as per se.
To un-separate such mentalities, we need to give balance back into our thinking by using both subjective and objective analysis at the same time as stipulated in the article on psychologists abandoning the subjective—objective divide.
The reason I stated that subjective analysis is about a wrong and right, black and white is it’s about judgment and separation of supposed opposites giving us a more emotional response. What I am saying is we don’t need to be any more emotional when we are analysing anything we have a disdain for and gives us more separation. What I am also saying is objective analysis gives us the balance we need in this case.
I agree with you, there is no true separation between objective and subjective analysis however at present, we are living as if there is, that is what I’m working with at present. It is easy for people like you and I to see this but is it that simple for others to see this without bringing in balance between subjective and objective analysis? The answer is no, we could tell them there is no separation but is this alone going to change their mentality? They need to become aware of living in balance between objective and subjective analysis before they will realise there is no separation between these two modes of thought.
Saturday, 23 August 2014
Written by Mathew Naismith
This is funny, having an interest in psychology, I thought I should have been able to answer a question I asked my wife last night not long after replying back to another science minded person who showed signs of being insecure, the question was, why are science minded people so insecure when conversing with spiritually minded people? It seems to have something to do with our belief in a higher power, a power greater than all the sciences put together, this is highly threatening to them.
Before I go into this any further, we must determine what the signs of such insecurities are. The following is a reply I gave to another person in relation to how we react when we are insecure as a child and how we display the same insecure traits in adulthood.
“This is an interesting way of putting it but yes......insecurities give us biases. We are all quite bias when growing up because we are only aware of our immediate existence, this is like anyone being fixated to one ideological principle and thinking it's the be and end all, any other ideology questioning such an ideology will make these people feel insecure and make them react quite irrationally/illogically/foolishly, how does a child react when it's insecure? The same way!!”
The following was written by a self-proclaimed atheist pointing out the insecurities that some people have about their beliefs, he of course used a conversation he had with a religious person which in itself shows how insecure he was, why wasn’t he objective to start with instead of using an opposing ideological principle to he’s own to prove a point? It’s funny how easy it is to point out other people’s insecurities but not so easy to see our own insecurities.
I have had numerous discussions with atheists and science minded people, they are all too willing to point out the insecurities in other people’s ideological principles but their own. They’re not being incorrect altogether in pointing out these insecurities in others but because they are bias, they can’t see their own insecurities, this is how a bias attitude can give one flawed logics but of course they won’t see this either because of their insecurities.
When first starting out in these discussions, they usually start out rationally, but most often than not, these people will display an irrational behaviour after I have proved a point. What kind of irrational behaviour am I talking about here? Name calling, narky remarks, dishonesty, being asked to scientifically prove every point I make but on the other hand they have excluded themselves from doing the same and so on. Once I start to prove my points, especially scientifically, the irrationality gets even worse; my evidence is usually dismissed as nonsense even though such evidence was obtained from Professors in physics and psychologists for example. I’ve even been told psychology isn’t a science even though science and psychology both derived from philosophy!!
Another indication of such insecurity is I’m a science basher even though I’m also into the sciences as well; this is a totally irrational statement brought on by an obvious insecurity of some kind. When these people are insecure, they will harp on the same thing over and over again like you are science bashing. This allows them psychologically to denounce anything you say as being factual or of any sort of truth by making themselves believe you are only a science basher. Do I get the same reaction from people into other kinds of ideologies such as spirituality? Yes but only if they feel insecure, a lot of truly spiritually aware people don’t react in an insecure way because they don’t feel threatened. I also by the way have conversed with a number of science minded people who don’t react insecurely either but see my point as I do of theirs, the discussion ends there.
In the religious Dark ages, the churches in Europe were afraid (insecure) of the sciences and of anyone of any other ideological principle but their own, there reaction of course was to rid themselves physically of such threatening people.
Are the people who are science minded today showing signs of the same insecurities of the religious Dark Age? The reactions I get from other science minded people show me this is the case, they seem to be in fear of a more highly aware consciousness than the sciences they so much believe in. A higher consciousness will, especially if it’s of God like consciousness, make modern day science mundane. This would be catastrophically psychologically disturbing to most science minded people who think science is the be and end all. This is of course no different to telling a highly religious person that it’s been proven a God doesn’t exist, we are talking about pure fear here so we will indeed react irrationally. The Middle East is a good example of this at the moment, any kind of fanaticism is a good indication of an insecurity complex, this includes fanaticism in any ideological principle including the sciences.
It has been said to me, when relating modern day science mentality to the religious Dark Age mentality that science minded people don’t go around killing people not of their ideology. I know by some of the reactions I’ve had that if certain science minded people could, they would kill everyone who is spiritual. There fanaticism in the sciences tells me they would kill for their ideology if they could. Science indeed has become a religion and a religion that is threatened by a possible higher power than theirs!!
So it comes down to being aware of how threatening it is to others that it’s possible that a higher consciousness exists over and above their own ideological principles, being spiritually aware we must realise how threatening we seem to others who judge their ideologies to be the be and end all. I don’t myself seem to have any ideology that can be threatened in this way, it truly wouldn’t worry me if it was proven that a higher consciousness didn’t exist, it would just prove I was incorrect within my assumptions that is all. Certain science minded people on the other hand have a lot more to lose because they have put science above all else, we must show empathy and be considerate of their situation, it’s not easy for them especially psychologically.