Knowing, promising, loving: what does it mean?


             [thoughts from    ~burning woman~   by Sha’Tara]

Can anyone ever say that they know someone else?  Can anyone ever promise anything to anyone else?  Can anyone say I love you to any other?  Yes, anyone can say those things; anyone can promise anything to anyone else, anyone can say they love someone else but what is that worth in reality?  It’s just feelings, emotions, desires.  It’s what is wished but where is the power that makes it all real?  Where is the power that guarantees what you want; what you claim; what you desire above all else?  Where is your power to “make it so!” and assures you that nothing can ever change your commitment?

Oh yes, I can already hear those who claim that some ‘higher power’ can do that.  But you know what that is like?  It’s like a certain book that makes the claim for itself that it is not to be doubted.  That is like a man who says something is true because he says it is true, and because he says it, it needs no further proof, or evidence.  “I feel it, other people feel it too, and that’s as good a fact as any.”  

Then there’s the lesson of history; the lesson of experience; the lesson of one’s life.  Do we discount such evidence in favour of hopes, desires, claims based on feelings? 

Our problem as human beings – and yes sooner or later we become that kind of complex entity – is that we exist in-between worlds and we’re always trying to escape the pull of one or the other.  For the most part we cling to any claim or theory that says we are earth creatures, evolved mammals not much different than the animals around us.  True evolutionists will even take a further step up the ladder of false research and deceit and put some animals a step above man in intelligence.  I have to admit it’s a tempting step to take, and I’ve hinted at that more than once myself.  But it simply is not true.  The creature that calls itself man is highly intelligent, whether it uses that intelligence for good or ill; or whether it uses it at all: it’s still there and a very large part of it is not shared or shareable with other earth animals.  Evidence?  Well, let’s see… would writing be acceptable evidence?  Philosophy?  A space shuttle?  A garden hoe?  A bubble-packed MP3 player?  How about a nuclear submarine equipped with a dozen Trident missiles?  Come on dolphins and chimpanzees, beat that huh? You simply cannot define intelligence one way one day and another way the next.

And back to the beginning: we know we should be fully able to know someone else; we know we should be able to fulfill and keep our promises and we know we should be able to say to someone, I love you, and never have to wonder if that state of mind, or that feeling, is going to peter out and leave us stranded, empty, incapable of re-awakening the fire of love we experienced; if we’re going to eventually have to admit we are no longer in love, and bail from the relationship or settle with it and make our bed as comfortable as we can for the duration. 

We have a nature totally alien to any other nature on this world.  It encompasses at least two realities that never blend: the spiritual and the physical (or material).  Our “spirit” exists on a non-physical plane whereas our bodies and attendant desires exist within the constraining, limiting, terminal material order of things.  That’s the fact of the matter, and the source of our endless confusion, or state of denial.

So, I’m a human being.  I am both a spirit being and a material being.  Now comes the million dollar question: which source do I take orders from?  What is going to rule my dualistic life?  Will I develop my intelligence enough to enable myself to work with both sources that define ‘me’ as a human being?  Or will I develop into a primarily spirit (non-material) entity, or a more physically-centered one? 

If I choose a more spirit type of expression, chances are I’m going to become a religious type of person.  I’m going to make myself believe that some unseen and highly improbable deity has control over my life and I’m going to have to learn to serve that deity.  Maybe I’ll even study theology in order to “prove” to myself that what I am doing is correct and proper, and is saving me from becoming a pagan, or worse, an atheist who ardently denies the existence of God, or gods, billions of people like me believe in, worship and serve in various ways.  I will thus rob myself of half of myself.

If I choose a more material type of expression, chances are I will become an atheist.  Chances are quite good also that I will begin to denigrate religions in whatever form as nothing more than superstitious nonsense.  I will likely seek to anchor myself in scientific knowledge that will help me counter the religious mindset.  I will most likely accept and support the theory of evolution as a better explanation for life as I find it than if I read the biblical book of Genesis.  I will thus rob myself of half of myself.  

The dualistic entity has to take sides; it’s condition gives it no choice in the matter: faith in invisible sky wizards who demand adoration or faith in a material universe that science is in the process of explaining, and will eventually explain to everyone’s satisfaction or confounding.  There is a saying, that you cannot serve two masters for you will like one and abhor the other.  You cannot serve both, “God” and “Money” or we could make that the “spirit realm” or the “material reality” as our brain/body encounters it.

So there’s the rub.  How can a human being exist under such conditions; under the strain of such a powerful dichotomy?  How can a human being ever know itself, never mind anyone else?  Simply put, we cannot.  So, with a little help from the propaganda ministry, we learn to fake it.  We fake it for God; for the school, for the nation; for the corporation; for the family; for altruism; for the evolution of mankind even.  We make claims for ourselves outside of ourselves and we go through our lives as mindless slaves of a system we can’t begin to keep pace with, or as leaders within the same system we still have no clue how it works.  And that pretty much describes mankind in general.

Does it have to be that way?  Of course not.  There is a part of me that is totally and truly mine, neither spirit nor flesh.  That’s my mind.  I can evolve myself into a state of mind where I reside neither in the spirit realm nor in the physical realm but have reality in both.  I can decide for myself to become a mind being.  That’s the place where everything slows down for me and I can see/sense a new reality of all things.  This is the place where neither faith, hope or love have any worth for they are no longer needed.  Think about that, for my rejection here isn’t paltry.  These are three of the often quoted greatest virtues in the world of man.  The dualistic person could never function without some aspect of these three forms of energy.  Only the self empowered mind being can do that, and in a very real way.

I have mentioned this before many times and I know that few people actually “get it” and I’m not surprised.  The dualistic person cannot live in self-empowerment, it’s quite impossible, for it needs a “master” or someone/something to love, to hope for, to have faith in.  It needs these things in order to dream its two-dimensional dreams, dreams that pull it forward towards some sort of goal, however short term (going out for a fun time with the girls tonight) or long term (Jesus loves me, I’m going to heaven) so that goal has to promise something good for the “faith-hope-love” self. 

To the mind being such goals become totally meaningless.  We don’t have “goals” we have a clearly set purpose and we link our entire existence to this purpose.  The purpose doesn’t change in nature, it’s the purpose being who changes to become the purpose.  If you follow my reasoning then, the mind-being is autonomous, self-empowered, and makes all her choices based on her set purpose.  There is no longer any gray areas; no longer any doubts.  There are no longer any fears as to short term happenings.  No need to confide in anyone, no need to make promises, no need to need.  That’s right: the self-empowered being has no need to need anything… or anyone.  The mind-being neither seeks death nor eternal life for we transcend both.

You’d like to recognize us if you ever meet one of us?  It’s not hard.  We don’t do love; we don’t do special or exclusive relationships and we never worry about what could happen to us, physically or spiritually.  We exist in self-awareness and self-knowledge, independent of all controllers including all divinities.  We really never have enemies since we do not seek friendship (though we may have detractors and may leave trails of very angry “faith” types in our wake and may well find ourselves dead at their hands). Others may freely befriend the self-empowered, but they will ultimately be disappointed if in doing so they expect to become special in the relationship. They will be frustrated when the self-empowered refuses to listen to their “secrets” and their gossip.  The self-empowered already know all the secrets and all the gossip.  They are aware that for the most part these secrets, that gossip, are intended to hurt and that’s not part of their reality any longer.   

What makes us different is our ability to see through the fakeries of System teaching.  We’ve examined love, found it wanting, and replaced it with compassion.  Why?  Because compassion can only be produced from self-empowerment.  Unlike love which is reciprocal in nature and requires input in order to continue to output.  Even God is constrained by this energy requirement in his stated relationship with humans.  We’ve considered faith and found it disempowering.  Instead of trusting in things that by nature and history we know to not be trustworthy we choose to “believe all things, believe in nothing.”  We do not build arguments against others’ beliefs, nor do we accept any of them as legitimate except for those who hold on to them.  As for hope, that is the realm of the child.  A child should hope; needs hope in order to develop.  But once having reached the age of reason a human no longer needs such training wheels.  There is no longer any hope, just reality, and the willingness to travel back in time to past lives and experiences, then push oneself ever-farther into that nebulous future using one’s purpose as one’s personal “ship” to explore realms beyond time. 

This question has already been asked: “Who needs to hope for what they already have?” 

Perhaps a good close would be to say, we don’t live in details but in generalities.  We don’t need to know because we already know.  We don’t need to make promises because we don’t want anything from anyone and we have no control over events thus making any promise futile. And if we exude compassion, any sort of love could only be a hindrance on our path.


19 thoughts on “Knowing, promising, loving: what does it mean?

  1. Maria Wind Talker

    I love this, would love to sit and have a coffee with you someday. Sharing in my group on fb.

    This just came to me…In the duality of life me myself and i sit on the bridge between the two hemispheres of my mind. one toe in each ocean and my third eye perusing the horizon.

    Moon Blessings ❤

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      You comment is greatly appreciated. Sure, it would be nice to meet and talk over a coffee… your place or mine? 🙂 Your “third eye” point – as good a view point as any. I like to think of myself as a “walker between worlds” because once we “see” past the limitations of either worlds we can no longer fit in either. In my view, spirit “gave birth” to matter, thus to flesh, only to realize there was no common ground and remain separate. So the human species, hybrid of spirit and flesh (not Earthian humanoids) arose to create a bridge between the life giver and the life experiencer. Sadly, the bridge remains terribly unfinished and it is the purpose of a true human to complete that bridge through whatever sacrifice is deemed necessary. No guarantees that the bridge will ever be completed. It’s possible “we” may find another way to promote and protect life… It is all in our hands now since we “volunteered” for the task.
      Check out my short story “The Move” category “cosmic awareness” and tagged “black hole” …

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Aw, c’mon… you needed the exercise… admit it! Yes I agree it is too long. I should have broken it up into smaller segments. Thanks for pointing that out. And of course, thanks for commenting!!! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Sha'Tara Post author

    Oh you too, huh? Geez you wimps! Yes, yes, it’s too long. And I’m desiccated with mortification as Sylvester Pussycat would put it… Thanks for the comment, Phil. “Perciate that extra paddle in the stream…”


  3. We come from dreams ~

    We’ve faced the split between “spirit” and “matter” a number of times. Each side has its apparent good points. Ultimately they’re both barren concepts, empty categories. Put it in such terms and you’re faced with a choice. But wait a minute! Who says I have to chose, that any of us do? (Looks around) Who’s asking the question? No matter. The question is a syllogism at best: “Is the grass outside blue or orange?” You know the best syllogism as a statement and not a question: “I am always lying.” Okay, I’ve put the thing in literary form; and I think of Nietzsche insisting, “We shall not get rid of God until we get rid of grammar.” This lead our friend Gaston Bachelard to take the whole thing in reverse and at one remove when he wrote “I believe it should help us to move from the psychology of ordinary reverie to the psychology of literary reverie, that strange reverie which is written and indeed forms itself in the act of writing.” Bachelard was remarkably prescient in much of his material, but here, he’s off the rails. Is Nietzsche proposing that we stop writing – and, perhaps, speaking? I can’t answer that, after 50 years of reading ole Fritz, but I’ll tell you what – we waste an enormous amount of time manipulating symbols. It’s as if, when we were small children, our parents tied large knapsacks on our backs and proceeded to fill it with small stones. Each stone was a word, a behavior, a belief, a symbol. “Say please” “Believe in God” “Stand up straight” “Do what I say, not what I do” “My country is the best”

    Screw that.


    PS, not too long! nyah nyah


    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Ok, score: 2-too long, 1-not too long. I can live with that. Hey, tone down the smarts, I’m not that brainy. OK, kidding, I’ll make the effort to follow you even if I know I won’t survive the swim. So, I beg to differ and disagree on “spirit” and “matter” – they may be barren to those who pick one side over the other, but empty? Oh no, they’re pregnant with ever burgeoning life! Here I stand, astride the two planes, as a mind-being. Here I survey my domains where I draw my reality from to create this ever-changing me. I am spirit, primarily. I am matter through choice of incarnation (literally becoming flesh). In Matrix mode, never the twain shall meet. A Matrix-mind must denigrate one or the other to achieve Matrix compliance and empty fullness. Without spirit or life-force to provide the base of existence, where is meaning? Without matter to provide the base of experience, where is meaning? I express in both. It’s been my life’s dream and my purpose to be the bridge between two planes of existence that can’t see or comprehend each other, yet endlessly give life to both. As a basically self-made, re-made or recreated entity, I refuse to follow any teaching, or follow any doctrine that tries to push or pull me this way, or that way. All there is now is “my way” and that way as I live it, though quite independent, is fully aware of its dependency upon its sources of energy: spirit and flesh. I’ve always maintained that I am not “neither” but both. OK, so I am not at all sure what Gaston Bachelard is trying to say, or how it relates to Nietzsche’s (do they really write names like that?) saying he wants to get rid of God by getting rid of grammar. Is God a grammatical fault? I know if I spell it backwards it suddenly makes complete sense, even to saying, I love dog. I’m digressing, trolling for a smile or a chuckle and how obvious and crass of me… oh well. Tell you what, you just read my comment and you know I’m f******g clueless about what you wrote. Care to give me a helping hand up the stairs and ‘splane a bit for our illustrious readers hanging upon our eternal utterances with baited breath? No, no… that’s bated (as in abated) breath! He exclaims in dire frustration, and “thank dog” there is no auto spell corrector in this here saloon. Just the press of words.


      1. We come from dreams ~

        *groan* ‘splane? As in Lucy and Ricky, “oh Loosey lemme ‘splane?” Okay. A long time ago the TV show “Saturday Night Live” had the by then elderly Desi Arnaz on as the host. One of the fun things they had him do was to give a dramatic reading of Lewis Carrol’s “Jabberwocky.” He got as far as “mimsey were the borogoves” when he stopped and said, “Whoo da hell talk like thees?!”

        First point then, where I could have been much much clearer. The categories “spirit” and “matter” as defined by the Matrix are empty and barren. Once unbound (rather like Prometheus, perhaps) from Matrix-think, they’re filled to the brim. Think of Keir Dullea as the starchild in 2001 and 2010 when he perceives the nature of a monolith: “My god, it’s full of stars!” Or anything else which we perceive about life.

        What you wrote:

        >”Here I stand, astride the two planes, as a mind-being. Here I survey my domains where I draw my reality from to create this ever-changing me. I am spirit, primarily. I am matter through choice of incarnation (literally becoming flesh). In Matrix mode, never the twain shall meet. A Matrix-mind must denigrate one or the other to achieve Matrix compliance and empty fullness. Without spirit or life-force to provide the base of existence, where is meaning? Without matter to provide the base of experience, where is meaning? I express in both.”

        – I tried to nutshell with “Screw that,” meaning the Matrix version of things.

        Now, as for Fritz. My personal opinion as to what he meant is: the category “God” has no basis in reality; it is a verbal construction – a pure syllogism. Writing for an audience, 99% for whom “God” was the Old Guy with the Beard, this was quite a slap in the 19th century’s lively Christian faith, erm, face. Very akin to Alice Liddell’s

        “Who cares for you?” said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!” (Note, Lewis Carroll again)

        That’s what I think that he MEANT. It’s the “what do I do with this information?” that he never got around to, which leaves the rest of us free to figure it out for ourselves.

        Yes, people really have names like Friedrich Nietzsche and Gaston Bachelard LOL! And I have some problems with dear Gaston. Never mind that we got the idea that we really do come from our dreams from him (and James Hillman); where Nietzsche is advising, stop talking / writing / thinking (IMHO of course), Bachelard goes the other way: totally disconnect from everything and make a universe where the only thing that exists is writing. Possibly useful in a computer simulation, but instead of freeing us from words / language, buries us with them completely. The Matrix-God would love that: “In the beginning was the Word.” (There is a variation on that verse in the ancient Greek, and it suggests that the early Christians were into baseball: “In the big inning……”)

        Before I get reminded that I, too, am using words, I’ll remind you that I’m using words. And I’m using words to tell you that I’m using words. Now, if you’ll excuse me, one of our cats has started chasing its tail, rather like my words here……D)


      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Hey, sure, clear as mud but I’m sure some people will be mentally equipped to make sense of it all. IMHO (my turn to use that acronym which I think means “I May Have Overthought”) you should have ended your piece thus: “I know you believe you understand what you think I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant…”
        No, it’s not that bad, I do get some of it, but being an eclectic kind of person (you have to be to survive being transgendered, partially ambidextrous, multipersonal and generally aware that everywhere is nowhere) to me words create reality, experiences anchors it in the permanent tableau of life. I’m going to have a shower now, then a glass of wine then put on my rose coloured glasses and look out the window at the permanently falling rain from permanently gray clouds. After all, who knows when or where enlightenment may strike?


  4. The Grateful Dead

    You make me think; and I don’t know if that’s the right thing to do right now. Sometimes it’s easier to pretend not to know or see. Easier but not better. I know of one such person who has exploited many people’s trusts and also used it as a leverage to get what he want. All in the name of faith. He says he is an incarnation of love who no longer inhabits the body. I don’t mean no offense, but he uses most of the same words that you’ve used to describe self-empowered people. I can’t say whether he actually is all that or just claims them as lovely badges to hold. But I do know that he has wrecked many lives in the name of love. This brings me to my point. Are people exploited because they are weak or act weak to be exploited? Why are we so ready to be used? I know it might be going off topic from what you said but this is something that’s really been bothering me.


    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Those are excellent points you raise. Any person can be “self-empowered,” whether of the compassionate type, or the energy sucking type, or psychopath. The way I was taught is, beware of followers for when people rely on you to give them answers you’ve become an energy-sucking vampire and you will destroy them. The problem you point to is only solvable by those who “follow” – those who read, or hear, then want to join or become a part of something they find comforting. The compassionate, detached, self-empowered, will live in such a way as to prevent that from happening. The would-be followers will find nothing to attach themselves to: no “ashram” or “community” or “home” and no rituals or special readings or mantras. Particularly, there will be no money changing hands and no expectations. The “teacher” will say what needs saying, do what needs doing, then move on and never look back or come back. There is no following the path of the “real” teacher: there is none.
      You say this “teacher” has ruined lives in the name of love and faith. Please note carefully what I’ve been saying about the three great virtues of mankind: faith, hope and love. These are false values and are constantly being used by teachers, gurus, leaders in various types of controlling environments and institutions in order to confuse, cheat, lie, extort money or favours and even to breaking up families and killing.
      See if within yourself you can “sense” the concept of compassion as a replacement for love. Compare what you sense with what you know. Ask, would a truly compassionate person… do this or that, say this or that? My measure is always in the area of self-promotion. Those who promote themselves (their status, their value, their following, their books or teachings. Those who made demands from, or express needs to, their followers; those who make claims that do not match their walk – are de-facto false.
      Ultimately though, the answer to your query comes from individual discernment and judgment. Words are cheap, becoming a whole lot cheaper with mass publishing, mass media, computers and the Internet. There never was a more critical time for discernment and taking responsibility for what one believes in than now when lies have become the most common fruit.
      The “teacher” is nothing, not even enough to claim humility. If what you read, hear, or observe from the “teacher” strikes you as having value, test it for yourself. If it is good for you, then its yours. Once you decide upon a course, the “teacher” has no relevance any longer. It’s just a tool made available to you which you use to get where you want to be. Once you’re there, you’re entirely on your own. The price you pay will not go to some teacher or institution. It will come from you and it will be to strengthen you, and only you, in your privately chosen path.
      Think of a teaching as a stepping stone in a stream. Jump on it, jump off of it, run on, don’t look back. The teacher will not know you and you will not remember her/him except as a passing memory, perhaps in those times (I know quite well) when you path will be the loneliest place in the Cosmos and you have those doubts about everything.
      I apologize for the length of this reply. If it fails to settle your questions, please let me know.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The Grateful Dead

        Oh please, don’t apologise. Longer answers give better clarity. Yes, it does explain what you mean by compassionate but the teaching concept- Going by what you say, is everyone a teacher? People come in our lives, teach us something, and leave. After some time we remember the lesson but not the person. Is that what you mean?


      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Ideally, yes. The teacher is the least important in the exchange, it’s what you get; what you understand; what motivation you receive that matters. It’s all up to you. What is a teacher? How many times people say they look at the moon through trees in the late evening and they feel something inexpressible – the moon, the trees, the time of day: these are your teachers. You see a hungry child crying in a doorway: if you are a compassionate being, that child will teach you more in a moment than a hundred self-help books or self-styled teachers. We learn from interaction if we desire to learn. If we seek greater awareness without discomfort or painful effort; without experiencing personal loss, then we will spend time and money on useless teachings and make the “professionals” rich. We are living beings, not computers that can be stuffed with data. Unlike the computer we do not store data, nor mine for data or input, we analyze it; we taste it, we sense how it affects us and we either pursue it, or we reject it. Most of the data I come across I have to reject, either because I’ve already had a taste of it and it was of no value to me, or it’s poisonous. So… back to discernment, and that is entirely up to me, as it is up to you. The greatest secret in seeking enlightenment is: you are, and will be, completely alone on your path. No one can lead you because it does not as yet exist, no one can walk beside you because it is only wide enough for one and no one can follow you because your footsteps don’t touch the ground of earth, they don’t leave any marks and your way will seem either foolishness or unattainable to others. And that’s the way it has to be.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.