Buddha Nature!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

Buddha nature actually refers to the truer self, primarily of the self void of the distractions and influences of the ego. The following question was presented to me on this matter.

_____________________________

Has a dog Buddha nature?

Actually P. RuèGer, a very good and wise question.

We could say that only domesticated pets can become this unconditionally loving, in this case the influence of Buddha nature is influenced by humans.

However, it is well documented that wild animals that have had their lives saved by human's show just as much unconditional love.

This then brings us to the point can animals, domesticated or not, be of Buddha nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

Buddha Nature: "The terms refer to the notion that the luminous mind of the Buddha is inherently present in every sentient being, and will shine forth when it is cleansed of the defilements, c.q. when the nature of mind is recognised for what it is."

Are animal's sentient beings?

This is questionable: "In Buddhism, sentient beings are beings with consciousness, sentience, or in some contexts lifeitself.^[1] Sentient beings are composed of the five aggregates, or skandhas: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness."

Can animals also attain enlightenment?

To refer to attainment is to also refer to an effort exerted to obtain Buddhahood. It is questionable if animals, unlike human's who have to deal with egotism, have to attain enlightenment to become truly unconditionally loving, actually, it's doubtful.

I myself agree with the following as everything is of consciousness.              

"In Mahayana Buddhism, it is to sentient beings that the Bodhisattva vow of compassion is pledged. Furthermore, and particularly in Tibetan Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism, all beings (including plant life and even inanimate objects or entities considered "spiritual" or "metaphysical" by conventional Western thought) are or may be considered sentient beings."

Human's need to be enlightened to the facts beyond egotism, animals don't unless influenced to the extent of human egotism.

______________________________________

I also received the following query from another person, "But I can't help but believe that our essential nature will make itself known somehow, to remind us of who we really are." The following was my reply.

______________________________________

Carolyn Field I think it does this Carolyn but we are too much within the influences of the ego to notice them at times.

Are you not aware of your essential nature? This is all it is unless the ego inflates it into something more comprehensible so that the ego can understand what it comprehends in the first place. Basically, to be more than awareness is ego.

In saying this, our egos underestimate a state of pure awareness, a state void of the influences of ego. Such an underestimation decreases the influence a pure state of awareness can have upon us. Our capabilities beyond ego is infinite in nature, there are simply no limitations.

Just to be aware is enough in a universe, a reality, of egotism.

 

______________________________________

I should also state that wild animal saving the life of other wild animals show a sense of unconditional love, even towards another species of animal.

Having sacred animals like cows or monkeys might seem ludicrous to the western mind but consider this, a show of unconditional love and respect is shown to another species. Does the western mind respect and show unconditional love even to other human beings? The western mind often shows total disrespect to other people's cultures, it's simply not conditioned to respect and express unconditional love towards anything not of its own. This is unless it can materially gain from this of course.

This now brings us to materialism, a state that has no desire or need of ethical or spiritual matters, animals simply don't have this dilemma. Animals don't have the dilemma of material, ethical or spiritual matters, they are totally free of these matters. They are then of course going to be able to express unconditional love a lot easier than most human beings!!

The essential nature basically refers to the fundamental element within all things for example, energy and spirit. Energy is of everything as the spirit is within everything, the truer self or the truer elements of self void of contamination through separation, for only the ego separates everything to quench its desires!! Animals simply don't have these dilemmas to battle with; it's totally unconditional, not just to do with love but everything as a whole without separation. How many spiritually aware people separate unconditional love form unconditional acceptance, especially in regards to our present environment, animals simply don't have these ego created dilemmas!! 

So are animals of Buddha nature, even possibly more of Buddha nature, our essential nature, than most human beings?      

What Is a True Sense of Love?

Written by Mathew Naismith

We are certainly going to have a different perspective on this, giving that each of us are conditioned to a certain way of perceiving in our own way.

A true sense of love to me is a love with fewer conditions attached, not more. A good example of this is relationships, why do some relationships work and others don't?

It all comes down to the conditions we attach to the love within a relationship. In observation of a loving relationship, you will observe that fewer conditions are attached, for example, how many positives and negatives are expressed or even observed? Each perception of negative and positive, bad and good, wrong and right, etc, add more conditions to the love, of course the love, the relationship, in the end will fail if too many conditions are attached.  

Through new age spirituality, how many negative and positive, bad and good, wrong and right, etc, are expressed, even the word toxic has become a common phrase. These perceptions are putting more conditions on our love, not less, so how true is this kind of love really?

I was recently on the receiving end of this kind of love that had insurmountable amounts of conditions attached to their love. Just because we create our own reality, our own vibrations that we are comfortable with, doesn't make all other realities (vibrations) negative or positive but this is exactly what is occurring?

If you desire it or not, we are all a part of the collective consciousness, it's wise to moderate the conditions we put upon this relationship. Of course to desire to have to feel all warm and fluffy to express love is but another condition; this in turn creates anything but a true sense of love!! Did Mother Teresa and Florence Nightingale always feel warm and fluffy? Their love had nothing to do with the desire to feel all warm and fluffy......themselves.

Participate in love by all means, but observe your own participation to make sure you are not putting more conditions on your love.     

Like a Butterfly

Written by Mathew Naismith

What is wise to understand is that when people like me seem derogative, we are not really being derogative, only a perception of negatives and positives will judge like this. If I call the human race a virus that is devouring its host, this isn't being derogative as there is no perception of a negative, it's simply stating a fact of how humans can behave. This kind of behaviour is quite natural for the human species to express up to date, of course if the human species allowed itself to consciously evolve even further, this kind of behaviour simply wouldn't and couldn't exist, I will explain.              

What is or isn't negative or positive to the observer is completely different the participator, mainly because there are no negatives or positives perceptions when of the observer. The more of the observer we become, the less motion is expressed therefore the less of the perceptions of negatives and positives we judge/perceive. Also, the more of the observer we become, the less we feel love and light because we are love and light. Feelings are of a high degree of motion therefore participation.  

The participator judges more negatives and positives the more of the participator we become, this is probably why the expressions like toxic and negative are used so frequently these days in Westernised spirituality. You see the more of the participator we become, the more perceived negatives and positive we perceive/judge.

OK, on one end of the scale negatives are ignored and/or denounced because they are toxic to our own positive vibrations. On the other end of the scale we have materialists who ignore what they have created, for example, child and adolescent prostitution. In the middle of the scale we have people like me who are not ignorant to these things, this is simply because these motions are not critically judged as being negative as it's natural for a leech to leech/sponge off of a victim/host.

How many of the elite create and then live off of sick dying people? How many of the elite create a reality that feeds off of other people in one sense or another? Cannibalism comes to mind which was and still is a part of some people's reality around the world, it's certainly a part of the elite's reality which is then forced upon the rest of humanity.

Is the human species acting like a virus, a leach and a cannibal negative?

Is an actual leach type creature negative because it naturally feeds off of other animals? Is a virus negative because it naturally devours its host and is a cannibal negative while naturally existing within its own environment?

A spiritual person goes into a forest and immediately feels all these positive vibrations, this is while at the same time the forest is all about a dog eat dog world. Are other animals praying off of other animals, each other and plants negative, why is it then negative for the human species to act in this way?

The human species is a part of the natural environment, this is too obvious in the way the human species mimics so much of the natural environment, the difference is, the human species somehow puts itself above what it mimics. Also, a leech is a leach as a virus is a virus as a cannibal is a cannibal, they are what they are void of being like each other, however, the human species is expressive of all of these motions and more, the question is now, is the expression of all these motions, all these participations, representative of an evolving consciousness?

Yes, the observer observes that some parts of the human species is expressive of these motions of the natural environment, this is completely natural for a species to do when it puts itself above all other species and forms of existence, the point is, not everyone of the human species expresses themselves in this way.

Yes, the human species is a part of nature but it's also a part of a different natural state of existence, an existence that is of the observer rather than a participator.

The universe itself is all about participation, motion, everything it creates is of participation; this is what we call nature, a natural environment of motion. This however is not the only natural environment we are a part of; we are also a part of the observer of participation.

The observer can be of love void of having to feel love first to be of love, in actuality the feeling of love is negated through being love instead of just feeling love. The participator on the other hand has to feel love, within this motion it will never become truly of love because there is simply no observation of love, just participation of love. Can we stop acting like a leech, a virus and a cannibal if we are still in participation of these motions? Only through observation is human consciousness able to evolve, of course observation is of awareness, the more we observe, the more we become aware.

Yes, it's hard to imagine, in a reality, a universe, of a high degrees of motion, one seemingly has to express love to be of love, basically, to put love into motion. Imagine being love without having to feel love. It's hard to imagine only because we are conditioned to participation rather than observation. As there are no perceptions of negatives or positives in observation, there are no feelings of love, joy, harmony and so on, they are simply not needed to be of these motions. Imagine being of motions void of motions, simply a motionless state of being of everything void of judgment or bias.

Yes, the natural environment of motion, the universe, tricks us to think we have to put everything into motion to be of that motion, this could not be further from the truth for we are more than motion could ever express in one state of motion. Motion represents a very tiny part of who we are as a whole; only through being aware of this will human consciousness evolve. Yes, we are a part of our environment but only a tiny part, the rest is often obscured through excessive motion.

All of creation is not based on the perceptions of negatives and positives, good and bad, wrong and right, love or not love and so on, separation period, perceptions are simply created and perceived, they are not the bases of all of creation.

Yes, man could have been a butterfly, he simply chose differently........

A Journey to Behold

Written by Mathew Naismith

I feel like a charlatan at present. Having posted over two thousand posts on topics like letting go in one sense or another, I still have an attachment to a journey I have no passion to belong to for I have my own journey to follow. I am not talking about a path as in our own personal paths that we follow through the collective human journey; I am talking about a journey that my path has lead me down to.

        

My family individual paths are following the present human journey, a journey conditioned to one order trying to dominate each path being followed. This means that all paths must follow the present dominating journey or perish, however, my path is leading me down a different journey, a journey where a particular order doesn't dominate all other paths lead.

The Roman Empire, the Napoleon Empire and the world order of Adolph Hitler's fascism, are of world orders; the human collective consciousness has been conditioned over thousands of years to the dominance of an order over all individual paths. All paths are to serve the order or perish, this is apparent today as a one world order once again tries to dominate over all other orders and paths lead.

Confucius died disheartened in China because he was unable to influence his countries journey to a great degree, his countries journey was of course following what China was conditioned to on a collective human scale. I would say Jesus was also disappointed at his attempt to influence the collective human consciousness as well, as of anyone with a true sense of love and compassion would for the collective consciousness.

You could say people like this tried to change the collective conscious journey rather than just simply influence the collective human conscious journey. The influence wasn't done in a way that inferred force, deception, lying and brutality under one order, so it wasn't to change the collective journey but to influence it in a way to be more moderate within its order.

A one world order will denounce or, if applicable, totally ignore anything it's proclaimed as being negative, especially if it's of toxic vibrations. It's of course understandable that a one world order will feel that other orders are of bad toxic vibration, these people will literally feel bad vibrations from other orders it sees as a threat or has disdain for.

Do you see where I am coming from in relation to new age spirituality? It's of the same order it's trying to extricate itself from so it denounces anything not of its order as what? Toxic, bad vibrations and so on it goes. Yes, while being of another journey collectively, we will feel that the present journey is negative and even toxic to our new order, the trick is to not treat a break away human collective journey as being an order. As species have evolved from other species over millions of years, I believe a new consciousness will evolve from the present human consciousness, this can't be obtained if we are still of the old order or of any order to be precise.

Yes, it is possible that western perceptions like love and light are of a different path while following the same human collective journey, in actuality this seems to be the case but I don't think it's meant to be.

The more unconditionally loving we become, the more accepting we become, our acceptance should be more unconditional not less. There is simply more conditions in what we don't and do accept, considering that to truly love one must be accepting, being less accepting isn't truly love, it's a desire. Try loving something you don't accept, within this unacceptance there is a huge amount of conditions. How many conditions are their to a world order? This is why there is no true love within a one world order, only desire. Yes, many of us simply desire a new human journey which will only continue us on the present journey unbeknownst to us.

I accept my family's journey as being their journey and not mine; this is the same on a collective human scale, within this I can truly love what I am parting from. Yes, the present human journey feels simply not of my own, should this really mean it's toxic or even negative like a world order? You will find what you truly love hard to detach or extricate yourself from, as it should be if we are truly becoming a part of a new consciousness.

You should love what you are detaching yourself from, this is simply not occurring. You must love it for what it is, not what you desire it to be in accordance with your own order. The journey to behold is simply not of an order, it's far more accepting than that...... 

Using Ideologies and Isms Correctly

                                                    Written By Mathew Naismith

Having consorted on this topic with a number of people recently, including clashes with atheists of one kind or another, it is obvious to me we are using isms and ideologies incorrectly. We are using them as a be and end all, or, an ultimate state of thinking that should suite everyone. Personally, I don't know of any ism or ideology that would suite every, thankfully, on a collective scale, we are too diverse, too unlimited in consciousness for that.

Why limit human consciousness to one consort, one ideological view which dominates and limits our consciousness to one ideological stance? For me, I couldn't imagine being this limited, this encaged by a singular ideology. In saying this though, diversity of consciousness also includes people being very content within their own ideological stance.  

In my own mind, all isms and ideologies should be used as a guide, not a be and end all, an ultimate state of being for all. I would not like to think that human consciousness could ever reach this state of encaged consciousness, a consciousness totally limited by its own conscious limitations. Diversity is the key an ever evolving consciousness.

Having also researched on this topic, I found the following quite interesting and very truthful. It is wise to know that isms and ideologies can and do create bias and even disdain, especially towards an opposing ism or ideology. Once influenced by such isms and ideologies, especially dogmatically, truth becomes a blur, truth basically becomes less truthful.                              

https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2011/06/23/the-danger-of-isms/

Extract: One of my bigger regrets is publicly declaring myself an atheist.

Not because I’ve made a recent conversion to faith—I’m still confident in my original opinion. Rather, because I believe “-isms” are dangerous, whether it is theism, atheism, vegetarianism, Buddhism or any other philosophy.

http://www.thefreethinkinglife.com/the-end-of-isms-2/

I do find the rigid conscious limited stance of atheists that treat atheism, materialism and science as a be an end, as an ultimate all powerful God like ideological ism, are as bad if not worse within their religion than extremist religion. Again, atheism, like any ideological ism, should be treated as guide, not some ultimate all powerful God like entity because this is exactly what is occurring.  

I personally know of a number of atheists, I was once an atheist myself, even my stepdaughter confirms that she is an atheist, for every good reasons I might add. They are not into extremist atheism, an ism that is being treated far more than just a guide to life to think and live by.      

The following will show how some of these kinds of atheists think, to me, there is no logics to the way they think and live. This is an example of westernised atheism, not eastern atheism, there is a difference.

_____________________________

As I have stated before, not all experiences and observations can be proven factually, it doesn't make them untrue to the observer or experiencer. The materialist/atheist stance is, to me, too rigid/dogmatic and illogical.

Everyone dreams including materialists, so if a dream can't be substantiated by hard core facts, the dream didn't occur. This would mean a materialist can't discuss their dreams void of solid evidence that they had an actual dream!! Strange logic's for a people who have a go at other people's logic's or lack of.

I do understand materialist/atheist ideological views, especially when limited to primary materialist perspectives.

I do however use a lot of actual experiences and observation, at times supported by scientific evidence. In a sense, I have a right to talk about my dreams void of physical evidence. How do you debate or even question a non-psychical occurrence void of actual evidence? It's totally illogical to even try but materialists do exactly this which shows how illogical they too can be!!

Fact and truth; I had a number of dreams last night.

Fact and truth; there is no knowable evidence of me having these dreams.

Fact and truth; I had these dreams even when the lack of evidence proves otherwise.

Fact and truth; the reliance on evidence to prove an occurrence occurred can often be flawed.

In my mind, we need to be more truthful with ourselves, evidence can be and is often flawed, this doesn't include actual tampering of evidence either!!

_____________________________

You have got to understand this stance of a lot of westernised atheists. To acknowledge observation and actual experience as evidence, would be to open themselves up to observation and actual experiences from opposing ideologies as evidence as well. The deception here is that atheists also rely on observation and actual experience as a prime source of evidence at times as well.

If you label an opposing ideology hypocritical, this deceptively takes the emphasis off their own hypocrisy, yes, its fraudulent behaviour by a lot of westernised atheists of today. It's sad that many atheists have turned atheism and science into yet another religion, yet another be and end all ism/ideology!!    

The Non-acceptance of Truth Today

Written by Mathew Naismith

Today, telling the truth will not make you few friends but many enemies, this makes perfect sense in the age of false prophets, people and news. I have a lot of true friends but even more enemies; it's of course worth having more enemies because of the trueness of my friends!! I should also point out that the following will be quite controversial to some people.    

So what is truth and whose definition of truth are we talking about?

Truth is defined as being void of bias, prejudice and deception while of observation. Observation being not of participation as participation can often give a false representation of truth. The more of the observer we condition ourselves to be, the more of the real truth we will become aware of, for example, the more involved in a specific ideology we become, the more bias we are likely to be. The amount of participation in anything defines how bias our perceptions will become; this is unless an ideology teaches one to observe as well void of bias, prejudice and deception.

The following is a reply I gave to a person recently I would claim as being wise. Its bible related by the way.   

______________________________

My Reply

I've actually heard the bible read in a number of different ways, this is how it actually should be. Yes, read within a certain context but not just of a certain context.

"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect – if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time."

You can read this as people using the actual name of Christ to deceive, this is what people are looking for, however, Christ represents the word of God, how many people today act as Gods to the people void of taking on the name of Jesus but the representation of a God?

By not taking on the name of Jesus but acting as God's is even more deceptive. False prophets simply mean the average person taking on the role of falsity, they act on behalf of the self-proclaimed Gods while making out they are pure, they are wolves in sheep's clothing. This is how deceptive our current reality is, many people don't even realise they are wolves in sheep's clothing!!

How many new age spiritual people are conditioned to ignore the so-called critically judged negatives in the world today? So if they saw a child was being raped, this is negative and must be ignored. We must put things into proper perspective, these people are deceived to ignore the negatives so the negatives can persist which are created and ruled by false Gods.

How many spiritually aware people today critically judge the present reality as being negative, point blank? The perception of negative in opposition to positive is based on fear, the fear of being in the presence of negatives. A people living in fear are easier to control by the false Gods. It's certainly the age of false prophets/people.

______________________________

Let's be honest, most people prefer to be lied to, deceived, as studies have proven, most people in the world accept lying (deception) as an every day occurrence in their own lives.

To lie, one would have to not accept part or all of the truth, even if it's only part of the truth, it's deception for only the whole truth isn't deceptive. Human consciousness only knowing parts of the truth about itself is deception, this of course includes me, the difference is, people like me know we are living a lie, in a deceptive reality. Now, try telling some kind of truth in a reality based on deception, you are going to receive a quick and often hostile rebuttal and/or refusal.

To only be aware of what one desires is a lie, to live this lie as the truth is pure utter self-deception.

Do we really want to lie and deceive ourselves any longer? The question is direct; the answers however are as ambiguous and numerous as the isms we hold dear and true.    

Easing the Pain

Written by Mathew Naismith

There are many ways to ease the pain of our present environment, religion, materialism, Wicca and new age spirituality of love and light are but a few ways of easing the pain. It is wise to be aware that none of these are right or wrong, they are simply ways of easing the pain. Is religion wrong or negative to a religious person? Is atheism wrong or negative to an atheist? Yes, to anything not of our desires can be seen as wrong or negative, within this perception, only the negatives of an undesired will be observed, this is human nature.

How negative is religion to atheists and visa-versa? How negative is everything else to a new age spiritual person that is not of love and light? Of course the extremism involved determines how negative everything else will be that is not of our desires or vibration.

People like me are simply into wisdom and awareness, this is not usually determined by what we desire but of what actually is, of what we observe in other beliefs and ideologies, not of what we only participate in that is usually governed or controlled by our desires.

Participation; as opposed to observation, is easy to recognise, it's usually linked to a desire rather than to what actually is, for example, God is depicted as a man. Atheism; the mind (consciousness) can't exist outside the human brain, or, there never was or ever could be a God or divine presence. To a person into wisdom, what would we know to be so absolute, but we are because of our desires?

Observation; doesn't work on desires but what actually is. Desires simply don't take part in observation, however, when we also participate as well as observe, we quite naturally express desires therefore create reflections or bias perceptions of what isn't desired. The trick is, try to observe yourself while in participation, yes, observe other people and your environment but be primarily observant of yourself within a particular environment. Most importantly while in observation of your own participation, stay way clear of wrong or rights, negatives or positives as these reflections simply denote a desire and an undesired. Don't judge yourself too harshly for it is natural to be desiring while in participation.

Easing the pain void of desires simply takes one to also observe, especially our own participation, of course as of always, this will be seen as negative to anyone of a desired belief or ideology, this is human nature. What we desire is simply finite in nature and transitory in it's easing of the pain, especially on a collective scale.

One more thing, what you desire creates pain for someone else's desire, avoid this if possible.