Atheism Is Quite Correct

Written by Mathew Naismith

The question of what is or isn’t correct is a funny one only because the perception of correctness is as varied and as numerous as our perceptions. To get a grasp on this one needs to look at how many different people there are, not just by race or by cultural diversity but how everyone is physically and mentally different. Is one way to look and think more correct than another way to look and think? It really comes down to what is accepted which is governed by what is accepted as being correct. If it’s not accepted, it’s usually not correct, in all, correctness is usually and mostly governed by what is accepted.

For someone like me who is quite accepting, correctness can be seen in various and even opposing perceptions and ideologies, within this way of perceiving there is no absolute correctness, there are only variations of correctness. This simply means atheism is a variation of correctness, not of absolute correctness like any other created ideological ism.

So why am I saying atheism is correct? To answer this we must first look at why I think religion is correct, especially in relation to God and divine entities.

In recent times we have seen science create the God particle and most recently a mini-universe. The question science is rightfully and wisely asking now is if man can create such things, what would a far more aware intelligent consciousness be able to create? Of course the universe we exist in comes to mind. In the whole scheme of things I don’t think man’s wisdom, awareness or intelligence rates very highly but even in this conscious state man is able to create or mimic the creation of the universe through science perspectives.

The religious perspective was to get a far less intelligent, literate and aware consciousness, in ancient times, to perceive that the universe was created by a far more aware consciousness than man. Even today religion isn’t incorrect in this as science is showing. Religion, as of any ideological ism, is governed by what is or isn’t accepted. How would you be able to get a less aware and intelligent consciousness to be able to perceive through science perspectives? This simply would not have been accepted therefore comprehended. In actuality the perception of a creator of the universe was highly intelligent in my mind, especially in ancient times.

Atheism was to accept what religious establishments were unable or unwilling to accept, perceptions and perspective based on a different kind of what is and isn’t accepted. Of course you do have one of the oldest surviving religions that also incorporate science perspectives and perceptions to one degree or another, in actuality a lot of religions today are more accepting of science perspectives and perceptions. On the other hand you have a number of new age spiritual people who totally denounce science, science perspectives and perceptions are simply not accepted therefore correct.

Atheism simply avoids calling the creator of our universe a God, a divine entity, there is no idolisation or of giving thanks and a show of appreciation to our creator. If we are of this creator, this divine consciousness, what is there to idolise and/or show appreciation to? Of course you also have atheists who can never accept that our universe was created by a far more aware consciousness; their doctrines are simply unaccepting of this. You also have atheists who look at everything created as ego, an illusion. Each perception is simply governed by what is and isn’t accepted therefore correct.

To me, the closer to the source we become, the more we become aware we have always been one with this source. If we were all aware that we are one with this source, what would then be perceived as a God?  You have to have a perception of separation to have a perception of God separate to ourselves. Yes, the separation is real but it's still simply a perception of separation, there is no true separation only a perception of separation, within this, we perceive the creator as a God and rightfully so in a state of separation in my mind.

In all, to someone like me, is atheism correct within their own perceptions and the answer would have to be yes, however, this does not mean that religion is incorrect within their own perceptions, it simply means that each ideological ism is correct within what their own doctrines are accepting of.

No ideological ism is totally correct but they’re not totally incorrect either, it’s all governed by what we accept and don’t accept as being correct. In all, what would any of us truly know……….    

Student Teacher, Teacher Student

Written by Mathew Naismith

I think it's wise to look at the teacher being the observer self and the student being the participating self, one not being without the existence of the other.

Being that the teacher is only a teacher through being a student, in other words, the observer is only an observer through something to observe, the teacher and student are as worthy as each other. One is never without the other no matter how much of the teacher, the observer, we become.

Look at this reality this way, this reality is a school of numerous classes teaching numerous curriculums or topics, everything we are of is within this school. Yes, we could skip classes or school period; at no time does this exclude one of not being a part of what they have skipped.

Numerous classes can be and often are personally judged as being negative so we skip, ignore or denounce these classes, this is the student self. The teacher self observes, without judgment, that everything is of oneself no matter how much one tries to separate themselves from these negatives.

As when I went to school myself, math, English and science classes were mandatory, yes, you could skip these classes but they were still a mandatory part of the students teaching. Participation in these curriculums was essential within the school system; this is very much like participation within a 3rd dimension is mandatory even when our minds are not limited to 3rd dimensional spheres. Simply expressed, the school is primarily based on 3rd dimensional aspects of self even while numerous classes within this school teach beyond 3rd dimensional aspects.

Westernised atheism teaches the limitations of 3rd dimensional aspects of self while spirituality/religion teaches us aspects of our self beyond these limitations. Once we are of the unlimited aspectual self, it would seem to the student we are no longer of the atheist self, the self limited and aware only to 3rd dimensional aspects, at no time is this so. So once we become the teacher, we are no longer the student when in actuality we are never not of the student. To the teacher, the observer, the 3rd dimensional aspect of self is always present, only when we are of the teacher can this be so and even then the teacher is still observant of the student self, only can the student self perceive this to be otherwise.

It's the student, the participating self, that desires to skip certain classes because the student is unable to see itself of being of what the class is teaching. Yes, you don't have to express what is being taught but never perceive as a student you are not of what class you have skipped, ignored.

Time is a 3rd dimensional perception, perceive beyond time and you will realise that everything has always existed which simply means, you have always been apart of everything, no matter how hard you try to separate yourself from everything you desire not to be a part of. You are always the student as the teacher, in acutely if not more so the more of the teacher you become!! 

Genuine Love

Written by Mathew Naismith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kUoTS3Yo4g

This video was presented by a person who I took under my wing to all their friends; I looked after them because they were having trouble assimilating into Australian culture, very much on their own accept for a child. They were trying to assimilate that much that they tried to assimilate into a religion they didn't understand.

Because this person was from Cambodia, I gave them a book on Buddhism. It's OK to assimilate into another culture but you don't have to personally give up the culture you are conditioned to, this also means not giving up an ideology and/or philosophy you are conditioned to. Of course if the ideology and/or philosophy are in conflict with the culture you are trying to assimilate into, often compromises have to be met.

I am so proud of this person presenting such a video on genuine love to all their friends, my guidance has proven itself to be true. So often do we guide people down our own path when they have their own path to follow. Yes, be expressive of your own path, which may or may not be helpful to other people's path, but avoid leading people down your own path.

What does a teacher do, do they guide their students down their own path or guide the students down the students own path? The teacher is simply being expressive of their own path that may or may not be helpful to the students own path. As they say," You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. "You can guide a student to your own waters but you can't make them of your own waters, this is unless the student's path is a part of your waters.

You could imagine how I feel that someone I have guided presented such a compelling video to all their friends. Genuine love isn't of attachments or desire, it's of the release of attachments and desires, Even attachments to ideological concepts that teach/preach love are not of genuine love. Attachments period are not of genuine love but of a desired love.

My own path is not to follow ideological concepts that I attach myself to but to use these ideological concepts simply as a guide, of course other people's path is to become attached to ideological concepts and use them as everyone's path. One is expressive of genuine love the other isn't.

It's not about what the teacher feels but of what the student feels. Genuine love is all about what the student inwardly and outwardly feels; this is the teacher's role. The student within us must also be guided in the same way without losing the teacher's guidance of genuine love.

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?      

How Truly Aware Are We?

Written by Mathew Naismith 

The caption that went with this photo was, "This is what greets you when you get to heaven."

I wrote in reply, "I'm fine with that, look at all those happy smiling faces that prove that true love and acceptance has no conditions what so ever. I am thinking of making a post out of this."

Do you have to be enlightened or spiritual to be and express unconditional love? Only does man think like this, so how truly aware are we!!......... 

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.     

A True Sense of Love!!

Written by Mathew Naismith

There is a lot of reference to God in my following replies that I gave to another person recently, a person who approached me with there own ideas of what a true sense of love is.

God is in reference to oneness and unconditional love, it represents the whole self as opposed to man's separateness of the self from others and the environment man doesn't desire to be of. Yes, we can create our own reality separate from the collective conscious reality, however, at no point within our own desired reality are we ever separate from the collective consciousness.

We certainly have a different perception of love, this perception will create the reality we personally create. This perceptional reality we create isn't for everyone; it's wise to be aware of this while expressing one's own reality.

If you don't feel like reading through all the comments by me here, I recommend reading the last comment, it sort of explains everything, however, there are a few good points made by me in reference to the other replies by me like, "Love is acquired, not desired......."   

 _______________________________

Reply 1

Well my friend, what can I say.......

What you have written here very few people will comprehend Nagual, what you are unable to comprehend, you certainly won't understand.

In relation to my wife and I; if my wife found more happiness in someone else, would my love for my wife be happy for my wife or sad?

Desire dictates sadness and even bitterness, this is not me or my wife for it is not about our desires but the happiness of other people we truly love. Desire always dictates otherwise. 

Not many people truly comprehend the true sense of love, if they are unable to comprehend a true sense of  love, how are they then able to understand a true sense of love?

What did Jesus do? There was no desire, it was simply a true sense of love otherwise he wouldn't have sacrificed himself for of what he loved. Actually, he's actions were not sacrificial at all; it was pure love, not easy for us to even comprehend in regards to our present conditioning to desires above all else.

I am not religious myself but I often make reference to God and even the holey trinity, to a lot of people's discussed sadly enough. I am simply not inhibited by such a limited consciousness.

Be Always Blessed,

Mathew 

Reply 2

In my mind it should have something to do with relationships, in actuality human consciousness as a whole. To separate one from the other isn't of God but of man.

Love of another shouldn't be based on desire but of God, yes, desire to be with another but not of love of another. If I was not to love my wife as God, my love would simply be of a desire. How many people desire to feel love? This is simply desire Nagual and of man, not of God.

Love is acquired, not desired.......

_______________________________

I added the following in ( ) to a post that was presented to me in regards to the following. A true sense of love doesn't separate one from the other, a true love through God, a sense of oneness, is to not separate but to unite.    

 _______________________________

 Reply 3

I love you for your bright ideas (and your dull ideas)
I love you for your Good energy (and your bad energy)
I love you for your pure intentions (and your impure intentions)
I love you for your wise decisions (and your unwise decisions)
I love you for your righteousness (and your unrighteousness)
I love you for your beliefs (and your disbeliefs)
I love you for your endless smile (and your frown)
I love you for the help you offer to the world (and the help you don't give to the world)
I love you too because through you

I see all my beauty too (and my ugliness as well)

Reply 4

It's not good stating so often do you understand now, too evangelistic like for me. My advice is to not put yourself so much above everybody else.

I worked in the welfare arena twice over in my life, do you understand now? I've given myself while under a huge amount of trauma.   

I'm simply not into creating a Goddess out of love, love is not the be and end all and should never be treated as such in my mind. Try truly loving void of truly accepting. If you can only accept love, this is anything but unconditional love or acceptance.

If your acceptance has conditions, so does your love Nagual, it's this simple.......

Reply 5

I think so much and analyse!! You have no idea Nagual, so much just comes through me not from me.

Within your reply here, you are putting yourself above me, this is too obvious, no thought necessary in this.

I spoke with an 84 year old Yoga teacher tonight, if you have to feel love to express love, you have conditions of your love to have to feel love. It's simply a desire, not of God's unconditional love.

Try expressing love void of having to feel love. I have been expressing this kind of love most of my life, not just a few years as of yourself as you have depicted.

How many people predominantly have to feel love to express love? This kind of love has insurmountable conditions as it's based on desiring to feel love over and above expressing love.

Reply 6

Very well articulated Kim. 

I worked with disabled people, they often don't have bright ideas, so called good energy, pure intentions, wise in decision and so on it goes. I also look at multinationals as disabled for they know not what they do. These people were excluded in this post, all I was doing is including them, in actuality they need more of our love and acknowledgment, not less and certainly not excluded because of conditions of positive or negative energy.

The conditions of love are of so called positive energy, everything else is often excluded as of this post sadly enough. Yes, the post is a nice gesture but the gestures are of insurmountable conditions.

If you are going to make reference to God, you must also be making reference to unconditional love, this often doesn't occur.

If the conditions are of having to love oneself to understand love, you have conditions, this is obviously not of unconditional love Kim. What if there is no reason to love oneself, no need of it!! The question of loving oneself or not in relation to unconditional love has no relevance; it simply does not come into question, as soon as it does, you create conditions.

What I am trying to say here isn't easy to comprehend; if it's incomprehensible, it's certainly not going to be understood.

Love yes, but without the insurmountable conditions that new age spirituality put upon love.    

_______________________________

The discussion didn't end up well; I ended up being referred to as just he and this is from so-called very loving people. Use people's names when in discussion, it's a simple sign of respect. I ended the discussion with the following. 

"Where has the real love gone? To people like me, it's disheartening, I suppose it's the way of the wind......"