Mastriani
No.
No
Mas
tadaaah
[size=75](Her Bessiness is “ever desiring” in her need of constant approval and attention)[/size] 
liquidangel
Really? because it would seem that many, many times you seem as though you DO know. Read below.
I am not being nik-picking, but this sounds like you believe that this a “feeling” of yours, but not necessarily the truth.
Not to sound (did I say nit-picking?) but this sounds like you are stating this as a fact when you simply do not know this to be true.
Now here, you say the word “if” leading me to believe you aren’t so sure again.
In this quote it sounds like you are absolutely 100% sure of this “God-self” being a fact without any shadow of a doubt.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but just because you say it doesn’t make it so. It is your belief; over time it is what you have concluded as the truth for YOU. But I do see some contradiction in the above statements because even though you are definitive in your approach, you sound like you are not so sure.
May I ask… where do you find this kind of confidence in your statements? If I, for example, would say something (off the cuff) like…
"God knows that we will die happy and contented."
Does my saying it make it so? No.
In my heart, I truly may believe this, but it would be outlandish for me to state it as fact — opinion, but not fact. When you state your beliefs as PURE FACT, I find it a bit of an eye-opener considering how many viewpoints/religions could contradict such a unique “God-self” perspective not to mention find it blasphemous. Actually, from a relgious perspective, I like this view. I even like the way you describe it because I see God in a similar way. However, my beef isn’t WHAT you say or what you believe, or even what you have concluded for that matter — my beef is your clear-cut “knowing” and HOW assured you are when you state it. Have you had some kind of religious experience or dream that gave you such enlightenment?
Sorry if I am giving you a headache, but I really want to know.
Sara
Hmmm…
You should definitely read the post in the context of the question which I apologise that I did not quote in it’s entirety.
To which I responded “I don’t know” (intellectually).
But instead of saying I do not know and leaving it at that, I offer what I feel. If it is felt, it is felt. Somewhere along the line we have been taught that feelings are not real. Like it is some sort thing that is separate from who we are. I was having this conversation with a girlfriend last night. (I’m sorry guys but this is in a language that only women will understand). We were talking about our menstrual cycles. It was interesting (and relevant) because I had said that I don’t mark the date and count the days, I just have a sense that it is time and true as day, the cycle will begin (on time). She wanted to know if it is my body that tells me it is time, or if my mind tells me. I thought about this for a while and realised that there is no separation. It makes no difference if it is my body that tells me or if it is my mind, because it is all me. Inextricably linked. I would even go as far as to say that in terms of knowledge - it is always felt in the body. That is how it is verified. We have been taught not to trust what we feel, for example when we get sick (in the body) we run along to the doctor to get the illness supressed or cut out. Instead of moving through the illness in a very natural way. The body is truly amazing, it knows secrets - if only we would listen to it.
If you read the latin phrase in my signature; “therefore the object of our minds is our body as it exists, and nothing more”. We all feel a thing before we think it. And when we make sense of it with our mind, we are still feeling it. All ideas are of the body.
- Dunamis
Having said all of that, I leave you to make of my words what you will. There will always be seeming contradictions because we mostly read what we want to read (myself included) instead of opening our heart to what is being expressed. This is not easy to do but it is (I feel) part of the process of becoming.
A
LA,
What a great explanation… and thanks… and I do get the body, mind, cycle thing so it is good that I (woman hear me roar) asked the question.
I think you are right. One of my best friends is blind. He wasn’t blind as a child, but became blind about seven years ago. When we are all together, he has a different sense of things - smells become so important… your breath, your touch, descriptions when we talk have to be many more words - there is no body language, or hint of a smile to beckon a response ---->just like here. Our senses never achieve their full potential… the power in it is remarkable.
I do think some of us have a more heightened sense of our spirit.
As you have said so many times, A, we all HAVE it, but we don’t know it or feel it - and so we think that it isn’t there. You DO seem so sure of it, so I couldn’t help but ask. I am glad you took my question with the spirit in which I meant it.
The caffeine is killing me tonight, and haven’t slept a wink. Unadulterated Poison. Hey, didn’t this thread start with a nice glass of Pepsi?
Did you know that that stuff is supposed to be able to clean your toilet? 
Sara4SpiritualGrowth
Then I did not understand what you ment. Which was you agree with the thought but think instead of ability it is a will that manifests understanding.
In which case I am still right as “I” misinterpreted your meaning.
Because of the lack of ability to see it was the Theory of ability you were disagreeing on and not the theory of words being misinterpreted and therefore not a sorce of complete understanding. I have missinterpreted your meaning and gotten a completely diferent idea altogether…
Reviewing our last two engagements:
Now do you see what I “ment”?
One more time when I should have left the computer on and stayed up all night… A short post, but I’ll try to get around to all of it over the day.
First, the issue of knowing: Tao te jing has many chapters that point out that there is no knowing of Way. Yes, we see patterns, vague images, even sense the equilibrium of all that is. We can be aware of these things, but awareness is not knowing. That which is ineffable is ineffable. In deep meditation I have experienced being in the presence of… and losing ego and becoming one with… and I’d be the fool of fools to try to put that in words. In those moments, the experience transcends words. My knowing of the ineffable is mine and mine alone. It is past words and humaness. Foolish talk? Babble? The fact that I’m saying anything about this experiencing is foolishness of the first sort.
And so, what can be said of knowing? To the extent that we retain our humaness we must function from a unique and constantly evolving perspective point. I can’t stress the importance of this enough. We only see touch, hear, feel, smell, and think about from a single point of view - wherever we happen to be in a moment. Can we know? Of course we can. We know many things and we continue to gather more knowing of what our senses and mind experience throughout our life span. There apparently is no end to the continued divisions of the world into ever smaller knowings, and perhaps some day we’ll know everything about everything. Everything but one thing: That which is unknowable in our humaness. The limitations of body/heart/mind, all that we are as human chains us to our tiny perspective, our miniscule view of what is real in each moment.
Awareness of all that is? Absolutely. Many have had and will have that understanding. But knowing of all that is? When I witness your ascension then I will say that you know. Until then each of us is human, and in that, there is the unknowable.
For those who have suggested that I or Mastriani are being judgemental and/or “knowing”, it is exactly the opposite. We’re all about the not knowing of the unknowable, and all the planting on of knowing of the ineffable, of God is this or God is that, or (thread title) being aligned with that which is, flies in the face of all the wisdom expressed in Tao. Watching Tao turned into a religion is dismaying because it prevents discussion of How shall we live? and devolves into a Why are we here? endless exercise in futility.
More later.
I’d like to say a few words about being judgemental. After all I am the expert on this particular topic and almost every other one too (that was a joke by the way)!
I think the problem is that your position of “not knowing the unknowable”, stands in direct opposition to those who believe that God is knowable. And as LA has pointed out, it diminishes those who have chosen to seek. Your comments clearly place more value on this knowledge/wisdom/development of “unknowing” versus any competing view. Thus, just like everyone else, you claim illumination of a superior “way” or “path” (although I know you don’t like those words), even though your path is defined as "unknowing. As soon as you attach any personal value to it, it by definition becomes judgemental in a very real sense.
Everyone has competing ideas, and we should all be able to recognise that at some level we are all judgemental. A truely non-judgemental person would either say nothing or be happy to adopt the exact positions of those around us.
Ned,
Of course we are ‘judgemental’. To the extent that we say this is where I am, we have also said where we are not. Pretty simple.
The real issue lies less in our personal knowing, or in my case, not knowing, but in stating it as pure fact for others. If you "know’ God, then you do, but for you to suggest that in your knowing, you know for me as well, there is going to be a rub. That is what happens here way too much of the time. What we can know of what I call the ‘ineffable’ is intensely personal, and cannot be spoken of in words, it is a total experiencing that goes beyond words. But many proclaim their knowing as knowing.
I’ll try to put it in different terms. Grace comes at the moment we realize that we cannot know all. If we knew all, we then are AS God. Or in purely Christian terms, we cannot “save” ourselves, but rely on the “grace” of God. (in our not knowing how to save ourselves) Whether Christianity, Tao, or any other religion or philosophy, it is in our capacity to give up ego (all-knowing) and accept our place in the totality of all that is within our limitations, that is the bedrock understanding that is the beginning of “grace”, or “enlightenment” or whatever word you choose to use.
If I emphasize not knowing, it is because I am seeing way too much of it’s opposite. Like everyone else here, I know lots of things, but attempting to talk about my personal knowing of the ineffable as if it is a fact that everyone should agree with is to prove that I have missed the whole point - and from any perspective that is true.
And Enoch walked into the wilderness, and was taken up by servants of the Lord, to walk with God, and Enoch was no more.
As i’ve said, i think i see what you mean. I will add that i think you’re being evasive.
And i can see that you do so in order to feel you are right; personal affirmation by evasion; as you wish.
I suppose i’m no better, insisting that you are unwilling; whatever.
Hi thirst,
Bingo! You cannot not continue learning from any or all experiences unless you are dead. But you can learn the limits of expressing the inexpressable. I reject religion and atheism, not because either is “wrong”, but because I cannot know. This does not prevent me from being aware that there is way more than what is available to my sensory/mind capabilities, but what I may "know’ of the totality of all remains inexpressable. What is so difficult to understand here? 
How we act out in the world may be strongly influenced by our personal knowing and constantly evolving understanding of the ineffable, but attempting to put it into words is proof of our lack of understanding our own limitations. We may cuss and discuss that which is manifest - and we do, but the ineffable is silence. To go “Tao” on you, “Those who say, don’t know. Those who know, don’t say.”
No, it’s more than saying this is where I am. It’s saying “where I am is good or better…”. The issue of value is what inevitably leads to judgement. You value an approach, a tradition, a way, a knowing, an “unknowing”. It’s all the same. When you give it value, even just for yourself, it either denegrates or elevates the approach of others. And you obviously place value on your approach to Tao.
But as I said above, we all do this by placing value on our position, even if we don’t ask others to adopt it. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot place value in something and then claim that you are not devaluing something else. When you articulate your “unknowing” and place value on it, by defintion you judge others who have not found the same way to be valuable, or place value in a different way.
And many proclaim their “unknowing” as knowing.
If I emphasize knowing it is because I am seeing way too much of it’s opposite.
Hi Ned,
Ummm, there may be a bit of semantics at play here…
Obviously, wherever I am is more important than where I am not. That the two cannot be separated should be noted. Do I place value on my understanding? Yes. But my understanding is in understanding that I don’t understand that which is the ineffable. Do I judge others by this? Since my understanding is mine alone, I leave others to know or not know as they see their experiencing, until,their position is proclaimed as a manifest fact that disallows my understanding. I’m not judgemental (well, I try not to be) until someone’s POV leaves me no ground to stand on. The easiest position in the world to take is to lock up all possible answers in the definitions. “The world is pink.” What happens when someone says blue?
Of course I value my understanding. It’s the only understanding I have. 
I would disagree that it follows that I devalue anyone elses understanding. If that were true, I wouldn’t be here. My understanding would be complete. I value others opinions and points of view whether they match up with mine or not. Sometimes, they give me a new way of looking at my own understanding. Again, the question revolves around how opinions are presented. By all means, we should express our opinions about our personal understanding, but be extremely careful including anyone else in our personal POV. Staying off one anothers toes is a good thing. It’s the old saw: “opinions are like ********, everybody has one.”
And as long as your knowing is about your understanding, that’s great. We just need to be careful when our understanding make’s others POV “wrong”.
In another thread I said that every time we post, the first three words should be, “In my opinion…”
tentative-
Why are you not a religious fundamentalist? Surely you've been exposed to religious fundamentalism enough to know it's essential creeds, attitudes, and goals. So you could be one if you wanted to. But you aren't, you are something else.
The way I see it, either you have the (un)beliefs you have by accident, which is unlikely due to your age and exposure to other ideas, or you have them because you [i]prefer[/i] them to presented alternatives.
And yet, you don't adopt them. And yet, you and I have exchanged words that make it very clear that you[i] do not value [/i]certain other opinions floating around out there in the world. Not that I'm condemning you for this, there are certainly views out there I don't value either. You can say you respect an opposing view all you want, but if you don't adopt it, either you are a victim of circumstance and can't change your mind about things, or else you have decided your present views are superior.
Why? I think tons of other POVs are wrong, no quotes necessary. I don't have any trouble getting to sleep, or back out of bed in the morning, and this attitude does not seem to be affecting my paycheck. What is the risk we run in believing other's to be wrong, that we need to be cautious?
Why would that bother you unless you think your views are of greater value that theirs? You don’t express it, but you are being judgemental.
Well, usually they have a discussion that leads nowhere. But by expressing your ideas and placing value on them, you are also saying “the world is pink”. If I say that you are wrong, and that my way is right, why would that be offensive to you if you were truely non-judgemental. You would either agree with me, or have nothing to say, since you have no judgement that would doubt my contention.
It must do. When you choose to value a belief system or thought process, you are elevating it above others. For example you value “unknowing” over “knowing”. Therefore, you take issue over my view that knowing God would be a better path for your life. You put value in your postion over mine and make a judgement call. We all do this every day.
That would be sad. Every view should be heard here.
Not true. By making a “judgement” you are not invalidating the possibility that you may alter that judgement later. I look out the window, see that it is cloudy today, and put on my coat. But it may be sunny tomorrow.
I disagree. Tramping on toes can sometimes wake us up to issues that we have never considered. Obviously no one should be abusive, but why should I not be honest and say that I think you are going in the completely wrong direction and that you need to wake up to that? It would be illogical to do otherwise.
Everyone can’t be right. It makes no sense to assume that you are right if I don’t also adopt your position. Therefore, everyone who disagrees with me is by definition wrong, until they convince me otherwise. Then I logically adopt their position. Why would that be so offensive to you?
I agree. Please take it as written, if I don’t do so.
Hey Ucc,
Why am I not a religious fundamentalist? Well, having been raised in a hellfire and damnation family, I probably should be, but at the bottom of it. it didn’t satisfy my spiritual needs. Why? Damned if I know. For a long time, I was anti-religious (with cause), but I finally arrived at being non-religious. After a couple of decades of looking around, I concluded that religion is irrelevent. Spirituality remains important, but I found no causal connection between religion and my spiritual nature. That is ME, and no one else. And you are more than correct; Given the way I see religion practiced, I’m tickled to be non-religious.
It may sound silly, but I truly don’t think my views are superior, they’re just different. Remember all of our squabbles about compromise? I’m still there. No small part of my understanding is that there are many ways to ‘see’, and mine isn’t to judge for you or anyone else. BUT we might have to compromise in order to cooperate. 
Are others ever wrong? Yup. Sure. But as long as they stay off my grass, or are willing to work toward a co-existence compromise, I’m happy with that. Their opinion of my likelyhood of ending up in hell is OK with me. As far as caution, back to the same old story. We need cooperation, not more divisivemness.
JT
Hi Ned,
Am I judgemental? Probably more than I should be, but the real judgements I make is when someone crosses the line and presents their opinion as fact that declares my POV as being wrong. On that I’m damn well judgemental, and I have no problem declaring that “judgement” that they (whoever they are) needs to back off.
If you want to say you’re right, peachy keen, but be very careful in telling me I’m wrong. Our points of view may differ, but you can only be right for yourself. You can’t make me right or wrong, and that is the point. If that is judgemental, it is. But is isn’t about the rightness or the wrongness, but the assumption that I should give you authority to tell me what is right for me. That isn’t going to happen, any more than you would allow me that authority over you.
I do not see the black and white position that someone who disagrees with me is defacto wrong. I do not take offense at a different POV, that would be stupid. I find many different points of view that give me new ideas, new ways of looking at an issue, or confirms my present understanding.
I have no problem in you telling me I’m going in the wrong direction and I need to wake up. BUT there are ways to say that and then there are ways… 
Ask me to consider? Delighted. Tell me to ‘be’ a certain way? Look out.
It's not a matter of being silly, it's just incorrect. I know you're big into self-reflection, but this seems like a clear case of a lack of it. The very simple principle I think that applies here is that if you didn't think your views were superior, you wouldn't have them. If you honestly thought there was some other system or set of attitudes that was more correct, more moral, or more whatever than yours, you would adopt it. You'd have to, because you aren't a crazy person. Look at the paragraph above what I'm responding to here. It's a story of someone exposed to religion at it's worst, shown it's flaws an inadequacies, and shifting from an open-contempt into a more stable and robust disregard. You aren't religious because you've been shown that religion is irrelevant, that it doesn't satisfy, etc.
Yes, but this is philosophy, not community re-zoning, or international peace talks. Those disagreements and the wrongness of others are the very things we're concerned with here, as a general matter of practice. When a person talks about judgementalism in the context of philosophy, we aren't talking about a desire to kill or subdue anybody- that is out of bounds. When we talk about judgementalism in philosophy, we're just talking about believing the other person's position is wrong when it's in disagreement to our own, and because it's wrong, it is somehow deficient (since it's taken for granted by just abour everyone that being wrong is less than ideal).
In other words, the points you raise about co-existence, staying off your grass, and being friendly and so on are completely besides the point. Nobody thinks you'er a KKK member, and do not mean to imply so when they say you are judgemental. They mean to say that you are like Ned- you agree with what you agree with, and disagree with what you disagree with, and aren't afraid to speak your mind in either case.
Hi Ucc,
Back to silly again. I don’t see my views as superior, just different. Yes, they are superior for my life experience, but that is the end of it. I have no idea what ‘fits’ your life experience and I have no way of knowing what is "wrong’ with you (what’s wrong with you? 
), or for that matter, what is ‘right’ for you. Do I ‘judge’ from my POV? of course. But it a judgement of myself, not you. That we may disagree on one thing or everything doesn’t mean that my views are superior - for you. Nor are yours superior for me. Does that make sense?
Oh, and the jury is out on whether I’m a crazy person… I’m hoping for a deadlock and a new trial…
Well, perhaps I’m just not philosophical enough. I’ve never met a philosophy I didn’t like - at least some part of it. That is true whether in a book, or from an ILPer. There are POV’s that seem more beneficial than others but that is only from one perspective point - mine. I try to remember that. For me, it is how it plays out in our actions that I find is important, and so I do emphasize the how shall we live? issues way more than the why are we here questions. This is perhaps why I get impatient with the who and what is God stuff. We all explore and come to grips with our spirituality in different ways. As far as I’m concerned, there is no superior/inferior issue involved. It is how we act out the myriad understandings that interests me.
Ucc, In my eyes, you will never be wrong, nor will anything you believe ever be ‘inferior’ to my beliefs. They may be different, but if we can get past the rightness/wrongness illusions, there is ground for wonderful discourse.