The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Raziel

It's been my point in this thread also - trying to ban the word "you" is essentially the language police.

All belief systems allow or quash notions & actions considered to be fine by others. Circumcision, abortion, pork, how prayer is performed ...

It is part of discussion to point out why poster A doesn't subscribe to a set of rules or principles. Poster B will have a counter point.

I don't see the issue in that. I understand the principle of circumcision for example even if a vast majority of the time its an overreaction from my pov - it's a fact of life that they happen.

There is no disparagement in pointing out perceived flaws in logic - the take away is that A & B disagree.

Often when a counterpoint cannot be made other than "my feelings tell me" there ends up being one side that is silenced which is despicable in my view.

It's putting one viewpoint above another.


.

The doctrine of Belief has both positive and negative connotations.

On the one hand, scientists and skeptics will say that all belief is just baseless assumption and irrational delusion without proof.

On the other hand, mystics and visionaries throughout the ages have said that without belief, nothing would exist whatsoever.

It's difficult to arrive at a rational medium for this...and in some kind of attempt to discover it, I was guided towards a book called "The Belief Code" by Gregg Braden....a scientist:

http://blog.dreambuilders.com.au/jou...r-healing.html

I have those 31 Belief Codes written down in my personal diary now.

If somebody asks me whether or not I 'believe in God', I simply say that I do not need to and when the onus of proof falls to Occam's Razor, I'm always like "what proof out there would ever convince an atheist anyway?" and there's no answer for that one.

Then we find that blind disbelief is just as bad as blind belief - sad but true.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

The doctrine of Belief has both positive and negative connotations.

On the one hand, scientists and skeptics will say that all belief is just baseless assumption and irrational delusion without proof.

On the other hand, mystics and visionaries throughout the ages have said that without belief, nothing would exist whatsoever.

It's difficult to arrive at a rational medium for this...and in some kind of attempt to discover it, I was guided towards a book called "The Belief Code" by Gregg Braden....a scientist:

http://blog.dreambuilders.com.au/jou...r-healing.html

I have those 31 Belief Codes written down in my personal diary now.

If somebody asks me whether or not I 'believe in God', I simply say that I do not need to and when the onus of proof falls to Occam's Razor, I'm always like "what proof out there would ever convince an atheist anyway?" and there's no answer for that one.

Then we find that blind disbelief is just as bad as blind belief - sad but true.

Belief is fine.

Its when one is insisting on how others must behave that it becomes troublesome I find.

I've never in my life heard a Sikh insist that all men should wear a Turban for example, they adhere to it themselves yet allow others to exist without issue.

In reciprocal response Sikh men are absolved of wearing motorcycle helmets & hard hats at their own discretion. Its quite a beautiful balance I have always found - an equal understanding.

The blog states things that are 2nd nature to me but perhaps it might open the doors of perception for some:

(2) We live based on what we believe, limit and create.(11) What we believe is more powerful than what others accept.
(13) Belief creates certainty based on thought and feelings.(19) Belief in unresolved hurt arises in harmful, physical effect.

At Epcot in Florida there is an around the world tour whereby you "visit" different countries & cultures before moving onto the next. Each exist alongside the other & visitors roam at their own discretion - we enjoyed it immensely, what a novel concept this must be to some!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot#World_Showcase

Thanks Shivani

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Raziel

Belief is fine.

Its when one is insisting on how others must behave that it becomes troublesome I find.

I've never in my life heard a Sikh insist that all men should wear a Turban for example, they adhere to it themselves yet allow others to exist without issue.

In reciprocal response Sikh men are absolved of wearing motorcycle helmets & hard hats at their own discretion. Its quite a beautiful balance I have always found - an equal understanding.

.

There was a member once on here called Baile.

Baile and I used to have some real barneys, basically always started by him saying to me "God only exists for you because you believe he does"....and I equated that, in my head as being akin to somebody saying to me; "you're just making it all up" and, of course, I got my back up over it...a lot and Baile loved to watch that happen, so the more I bit...the more bait was applied to the hook.

In the end, I understood what was going on (through a 'divine intercession') and whenever Baile said to me "God only exists because you believe he does" I merely retorted; "if you believe so".

In the end, we became good friends...I wonder whatever happened to Baile?

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Raziel

The blog states things that are 2nd nature to me but perhaps it might open the doors of perception for some:

2) We live based on what we believe, limit and create.
11) What we believe is more powerful than what others accept.
13) Belief creates certainty based on thought and feelings.
19) Belief in unresolved hurt arises in harmful, physical effect.

Thanks Shivani

You're more than welcome.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

the more I bit...the more bait was applied to the hook.

Taketh of the bait, eat .. then pull the fisherman into the lake of realisation...

Perhaps then the understanding of who can actually swim will finally hit home


.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Raziel

Boom!

There we have a mutual understanding via disagreeing but not being offended

- The above quoted example is - for me in any case exactly the same as the word you & also why I have continued to champion the fact that it is not my responsibility to guard my words as someone is always offended somehow.

Ideally yes - only actual clear cut insults should be taken as offensive, yet within the interpretation & the context of conversation offence is still caused.

Its not so simple because very often cutting personal remarks are not direct insult, but insinuation. I remember recently a person would use the the word 'honest' to imply I was dishonest. It wasn't a direct insult in any way, but the meaning of the message was still clear. It's so often maneuvered in an indirect and manipulative way.

The onus is within the offended to see why this is so.

Antifa's "punch a nazi" is a great example - once they deem a person to be a nazi it is fine to act with violence in their belief system.

Yes indeed 'nazi' is often used in justification narratives. 'Feminazi' is a good example.

What is even more baffling is that most of Antifa are communists & more people have died under Communism than ever died under Nazi rule.

Its hypocrisy - I can decide on your behalf but if you do the same for me your a fascist/bigot/toxic male/heathen/kiffar ..etc

~

The conversation is necessary to meet an understanding even if the ideology is not reciprocated.
If someone is genuinely offended it is courteous & civil to attempt to build bridges. Some personality types merely feign offence unfortunately & that speaks to larger issues on the whole.

Someone who refuses to admit to priests abusing children, sacrifices actual pain on behalf of ideology which I find morally & ethically reprehensible.

On that same token the victim years later may have a bias against Catholicism or men due to their experiences. They will tar all with that same disgusting brush & although logical - it's unreasonable on behalf of someone who has done nothing wrong except be male or Catholic.

Well, as they say, once bitten twice shy.

That victim should not be in charge of policing others on how not to offend them, there is a deeper issue causing the offence as it is a reminder of past pain.

The person has the right to define their own boundaries. They don't have to justify that to anyone.

Hence my continuous stance of word policing - the intent of others may very well not be to offend yet they are punished regardless & saddled with a guilt that is not theirs to bear.

.

Yes it becomes all twisted and messed up because people aren't particularly clear as to their own intent. That right wing speaker I mentioned in the last post didn't like being in a position where calling a woman 'she' was framed as 'an act of violence' - and of course he doesn't mean any offense by that pronoun. Indeed after being told the female in question preferred 'them they their' he did his best to respect that. He referred to them as 'her' accidentally, out of sheer habit of speech, and not as as an intent to rile 'them' up. However, they still reacted as if it were an 'act of violence' (as they described it). Of course this 'act of violence' somehow makes the fu justifiable... but the reality on the ground is, the speaker had no intention to hurt anyone's feelings, and those ones offended did. In short, the 'victims' were actually the violent party.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Gem

Its not so simple because very often cutting personal remarks are not direct insult, but insinuation. I remember recently a person would use the the word 'honest' to imply I was dishonest. It wasn't a direct insult in any way, but the meaning of the message was still clear. It's so often maneuvered in an indirect and manipulative way.

For many, if a person continuously makes statements similar to "I used to do that before I learned .." the unspoken implication is that they are further ahead in realisation or development.

Naturally there will be places in conversation where this is appropriate - however it cannot possibly be the case in every possible scenario. Thats when I myself begin to wonder if the claimant merely craves a nice pat on the back - even if it's by their own hand.

Often I have caught such a person out in the very same conversation accidentally dropping the superiority & admitting to actually & obviously being just as human as everyone else - they tend to become militant if you speak of their mask slipping however.

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes indeed 'nazi' is often used in justification narratives. 'Feminazi' is a good example.

Marxist feminists are an actual thing however ..

Originally Posted by Gem

The person has the right to define their own boundaries. They don't have to justify that to anyone.

It's without question - almost beyond obvious that a person define their own boundaries. What in my eyes is also without question is that they do not define other peoples.

Originally Posted by Gem

In short, the 'victims' were actually the violent party.

Indeed, its important to note that whomever the "victim" is berating is really a substitute for the past initiator of said feeling.

Again as I have pointed out somewhere in the thread, it's unfair for an innocent person to feel the full force of hatred that in reality should be directed at the past initiator.

Essentially: the fact that Dusty used to hit his son Cody in 1976 does not justify Cody trying to control what he deems to be aggressive language in 2018.
Understanding Codys justified internal conflict requires empathy & reform - I don't see that Dustys crimes should have a knock on effect on everyone else.

Dusty was in this tale - a monster - the every day person saying or doing what everyday people do are not the same as Dusty.

I'd have thought that helping get Cody back into a "normal" life whereby we can be offended without automatically becoming victims would be better for all - sadly some folks just don't want to feel any discomfort ever again.

.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

Its not so simple because very often cutting personal remarks are not direct insult, but insinuation. I remember recently a person would use the the word 'honest' to imply I was dishonest. It wasn't a direct insult in any way, but the meaning of the message was still clear. It's so often maneuvered in an indirect and manipulative way.

I understand that often people who are not (fully) aware and open to this kind of thing, can make out your imagining things in this way.. Until you are aware of yourself more clear without these kind of games, the one expressing in this way, can be the fool fooling themselves and wonder why people refuse to engage with this kind of behaviour..I have seen others react to the refusal's to engage, without any self reflection upon their own behaviours in this way and sometimes if it is pointed out, they turn it around to make it had no ill intent. It makes me wonder if they are oblivious as to how apparent it can be, but I guess if your caught in the fool trap, it can be until you see.

[7luminaries]

I think we should be extremely careful when labeling others. Terms like "Marxist feminist" are almost always a disparaging and hostile term when used by others and not by the person themselves. Even more dangerously, I have seen it used repeatedly against myself directly and probably others. This label is not acceptable for me personally. This label does not apply; we are not to speak of political terms and positions here anyway. Exactly because political terms and labels and categories are so often use the ways that are pejorative and insulting toward others -- and to belittle and disparage them. Or to try to create an environment of hostility and to turn the public opinion against them. It is not appropriate and I request that no one here apply that label to me when I do not apply that label to myself, nor to others.

Once again this is a boundary issue. It is not for others to say who I am nor to label me or whomever in pejorative terms. Nor to labelus at all. There is no way that any of us can determine for another nor can we say that we know clearly who and what another person is nor what they stand for. That is a violation of their boundaries and IMO it commonly occurs when attacking others or engaging in name-calling.

It is very much the case that when a person defines their boundaries and says what is there is not acceptable for them, it very often will draw a line whereby others who are used to crossing those boundaries will feel that they are being called up short. This is the reality, that when you infringe upon another person's boundaries and they call you on it, then you will have to address the fact that you are in need of drawing your boundaries more conservatively so that you do not routinely violate other's boundaries by insulting them, calling them names, and or personally attacking them. This is the obvious logical implication. And this is one of the items we are discussing in this spiritual conversation.

Labels like "Commie" or "Marxist feminist", for example are extremely inflammatory and almost always use in a derogatory sense although folks will say I am merely being descriptive (according to myself of course) but I just happen to use this derogatory term that routinely incites great prejudice and emotion. To even attempt to label others at a personal level is all so clearly inaccurate and false, as there is no way you can assess for another who they are, know who or what they are affiliated with, nor anything else about them. Certainly not unless they claim that term for themselves and publicly state that this is the case.

We can put forth argument and rationales and draw from a variety of modern mainstream thought on any side of the spectrum. It is no one's right to determine for another who they are and put them in a box that is pejorative and inflammatory and contentious. Simply because, quite frankly, they may want to personally attack another and call them names, and generally behave in a way that is contentious and problematic toward others. That is the appearance that it gives IMO when others attack personally and engage in name-calling.

Now if I say that I do not accept name-calling and personal attacks, that means that if you are the one who is perpetrating name-calling and personal attacks, then if you recognise my right to my own boundaries and to be left in peace to state my opinion without molestation and hostility, it means you will have to redefine your own boundaries so that you do not transgress and violate mine and others. You can jump up and down and cry to the High Heavens that others are trying to tell you what to do, when in fact they are simply stating that you do not have the right to violate their own boundaries. And they have a right to state that.

For example if the father is abusing the son and calling him names, and the son says stop -- then if the father refuses to do so because he needs to express himself, then we have a dilemma don't we? And yet, the son is not acting beyond his rights as a person to say stop abusing me, stop calling me names, and stop attacking me personally. Stop speaking for me and telling me who or what I am, and allow me to speak for myself. In other words the son is establishing normal and civil human boundaries of engagement and community and discourse. It's an interesting example that Raziel chose above, but I will reuse it simply for the purposes of example.

All here spoken by way of giving an example in the general sense of "me" and "you".

Peace and blessings
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Raziel

For many, if a person continuously makes statements similar to "I used to do that before I learned .." the unspoken implication is that they are further ahead in realisation or development.

Yes that does come across as rather smug.

Naturally there will be places in conversation where this is appropriate - however it cannot possibly be the case in every possible scenario. Thats when I myself begin to wonder if the claimant merely craves a nice pat on the back - even if it's by their own hand.

I think usually they are just floating their own boat.

Often I have caught such a person out in the very same conversation accidentally dropping the superiority & admitting to actually & obviously being just as human as everyone else - they tend to become militant if you speak of their mask slipping however.

My view is making interpersonal comparisons is generally misguided on the whole, but everyone is just as human as everyone else, which is probably a fair comparison.

Marxist feminist are an actual thing however ..

Hehe that's true.

It's without question - almost beyond obvious that a person define their own boundaries. What in my eyes is also without question is that they do not define other peolpe

Yes defining ones own boundaries isn's a demand or imposition on anyone else. It's a little bit tricky like that. Boundaries are also different depending on who we interact with. They basically define the nature of relationship we have with any given individual.

Indeed, its important to note that whomever the "victim" is berating is really a substitute for the past initiator of said feeling.

Again as I have pointed out somewhere in the thread, it's unfair for an innocent person to feel the full force of hatred that in reality should be directed at the past initiator.

Essentially: the fact that Dusty used to hit his son Cody in 1976 does not justify Cody trying to control what he deems to be aggressive language in 2018.
Understanding Codys justified internal conflict requires empathy & reform - I don't see that Dustys crimes should have a knock on effect on everyone else.

Well Cody's internal conflict is understandable... so that's a tricky business... because it probably will knock on to someone else, and I'm sure we all do that to some degree... each in our own ways.

Dusty was in this tale - a monster - the every day person saying or doing what everyday people do are not the same as Dusty.

I'd have thought that helping get Cody back into a "normal" life whereby we can be offended without automatically becoming victims would be better for all - sadly some folks just don't want to feel any discomfort ever again.

.

Well it's a good point, because the word 'difficulty' does pertain to discomfort in one way or another... and I have always likes Gibran's verse "On Houses" in which he says:

"Have you beauty, that leads the heart from things fashioned of wood and stone to the holy mountain?
Tell me, have you these in your houses?
Or have you only comfort, and the lust for comfort, that stealthy thing that enters the house a guest, and then becomes a host and then a master?"

Full verse here: http://www.katsandogz.com/onhouses.html