Fundamental Differences of Understanding..

Greetings..

There seems to be a fundamental division of understanding among a group of the Spiritual Forum regular posters.. this division of understanding seems to complicate other threads, often derailing those threads beyond repair, so.. i hope to express the division as accurately as possible, and to invite open and reasoned discussion in this thread, such that as it comes-up in other threads, the issue(s) can be diverted here..

There are those that insist a collection of words, specific arrangements and specific words, are absolutely true and represent the Ground State of Being, some of these collections are: 'Love is all there is', and.. "love itself", and.. 'boundless silence', and.. "awareness becoming aware of itself", and.. non-duality.. These are some of the fundamental concepts interjected into numerous threads that seem to side-track those threads..

There are others that insist that there are no collections of words or concepts that are absolutely true, or even absolute.. that there are only refinements of perception experience and observation that more accurately reveal the nature of existence.. that there are no inherent meanings to the process of existence existing other than the meanings assigned by the various observers and in accordance with the observer's understandings.. and, that duality is the fundamental Ground State of Being.. these are some of the fundamental concepts expressed as rebuttals to the previous paragraph's implications..

Hopefully, someone will at least refine the assessment of the situation..

Be well..

[xxLoveLifexx]

TzuJanLi,

the content of every poster is virtually to a great degree always a variable - no matter what understanding someone is coming from or which perspective we use to illustrate something. Everyone sees the world through the own definitions/meanings/belief/projections/perspectives etc. .

Two persons could have a discussion about a topic without understanding anything of what each others are saying and yet get something out if it, it's not so much up to what someone says, it's mainly up to the one who listens.

The issue that consistently stirs up the conflict and difficulty is the need to be right or wanting to feel justified about the own experience. It would make some of the topics more effortless, richer and relaxed to drop that type of need. I'm all for honoring the diversity and variety of the points of views we can have.

Originally Posted by Lukas

...I'm all for honoring the diversity and variety of the points of views we can have.

Well put.

I too desire a forum where 'differences of opinion' are discussed and openly weighed on their own merits, rather than arbitrarily judging one as superior and the rest as inferior, and trying to divert everything but the 'official' opinion to a 'side-track' thread.

In fact, I find myself rather amused at the thought!

[Moonglow]

Hello,

What comes to me is;
Two or more people can have the same experience, but each one will walk away with a different view point or even a different evaluation of the experience.

All may be talking about the same thing, but what each one received from the experience or notice may vary.

Then when one tries to describe the experience to someone who may not have experienced it, it is just that a description. This is up for interpretation or how the other understands what is being described.

Some, I feel, at times have come to perhaps a conclusion as to what this means and how it applies to life. While others like the exploration of and wish to keep that going. While still others may seek to understand what is being discussed better.

I suppose it how one states his/her point of view and how this is interpreted by another. To perhaps not make everything said to be personal, unless expressed so, IMO.

I feel respecting what is being discussed and being open to other view points help keep it on track and flowing.

Just some view points/opinions on this.

Peace

[blackraven]

TzuJanLi - I have little understanding as to why some people get caught up on semantics, ie. over one’s word selection(s) to the degree that arguments ensue and destroy what could have been a thought-provoking and flowing thread for people to feel like they want to jump in and contribute.

Blackraven

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hello,

What comes to me is;
Two or more people can have the same experience, but each one will walk away with a different view point or even a different evaluation of the experience.

All may be talking about the same thing, but what each one received from the experience or notice may vary.

Then when one tries to describe the experience to someone who may not have experienced it, it is just that a description. This is up for interpretation or how the other understands what is being described.

Some, I feel, at times have come to perhaps a conclusion as to what this means and how it applies to life. While others like the exploration of and wish to keep that going. While still others may seek to understand what is being discussed better.

I suppose it how one states his/her point of view and how this is interpreted by another. To perhaps not make everything said to be personal, unless expressed so, IMO.

I feel respecting what is being discussed and being open to other view points help keep it on track and flowing.

Just some view points/opinions on this.

Peace

I agree to a large degree.

That said, I think it also comes down to the difference of two primary perspectives. One I will call Rejection, the other, Surrender.

Rejection is a philosophy of exclusion that starts with an ideal - that there are no inherent meanings to the process of existence existing other than the meanings assigned by the various observers and in accordance with the observer's understandings. Consequently, they start with a preconceived idea of what they are looking for, and simply Reject any experience that arises that does not fit their a-priori assumption.

Surrender, on the other hand is a philosophy of acceptance that starts with openness. Though expectations might be evident in the beginning, the fundamental mechanism of the exercise is an unending process of simply letting go of any kind of clinging, including of expectations, for or against a particular experience. The eventual result is arrival at a fundamental ground of being that anyone who holds to this activity to complete surrender can validate.

The difference is in the process of reduction to what the experiencer will label 'the Fundamental Ground of Being', though what is actually experienced is, of course, just what the experiencer sets out to find.

Greetings..

Originally Posted by Lukas

TzuJanLi,

the content of every poster is virtually to a great degree always a variable - no matter what understanding someone is coming from or which perspective we use to illustrate something. Everyone sees the world through the own definitions/meanings/belief/projections/perspectives etc. .

Two persons could have a discussion about a topic without understanding anything of what each others are saying and yet get something out if it, it's not so much up to what someone says, it's mainly up to the one who listens.

The issue that consistently stirs up the conflict and difficulty is the need to be right or wanting to feel justified about the own experience. It would make some of the topics more effortless, richer and relaxed to drop that type of need. I'm all for honoring the diversity and variety of the points of views we can have.

Hi Lukas: largely, i agree.. i suppose compassion compels me to seek an alternative to evangelical hijacking of threads, so.. it's simply an offer to open this 'fundamental difference of understanding' up for its own discussion, where those not interested can enjoy the threads they were enjoying..

We all have a desire to be 'right', more so than a desire to be 'wrong', when those are the categories presented.. i am for diversity, too.. so, in a discussion about the flavor of beans, when someone insists that only a certain bean has the right flavor, where is the diversity in that opinion? when the same person of the 'right bean' opinion is offered a position that allows others to choose their own opinions, that is rejected and the 'right bean' opinion is insisted.. hopefully, we can find an agreeable understanding that allows for a common use of Language to express our understandings without diminishing the understandings of others except as a cooperative search for a more accurate representation of existence..

What is astounding, to me, is that given the freedom of choice to believe as one chooses, that in that choosing someone would insist that others are not choosing appropriately unless they agree with the choice 'that someone' has made.. where i would normally agree with the premise of allowing opinions to be expressed as part of a rich tapestry, there are those that insist that the tapestry must have the pattern they approve of to be 'real'..

What i am hoping for, is a place to examine the tapestry.. and a place to examine the examining.. most posters here know my position, i am more interested in seeing/experiencing clearly, than seeing/experiencing 'something'.. and, i freely admit to being complicit in hijackings, which is why i propose exploring the differences apart from recurring thread derailments..

I suppose if someone feels they are 'right' they will find no reason to expose their understandings to scrutiny or even rational reasoned discussion, but.. i feel compelled to offer a level field.. to put my own understandings up for scrutiny, in the sincere search for a more accurate representation of reality..

Be well..

[Mathew James]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

....There are those that insist a collection of words, specific arrangements and specific words, are absolutely true and represent the Ground State of Being, some of these collections are: 'Love is all there is', and.. "love itself", and.. 'boundless silence', and.. "awareness becoming aware of itself", and.. non-duality...

Hopefully, someone will at least refine the assessment of the situation..

Since you are looking at ways to refine the assessment of this "wording" situation, which is seen and played by many, my thoughts are only to add two more words to the collection; rejection , surrender

mj

Originally Posted by Mathew James

Since you are looking at ways to refine the assessment of this "wording" situation, which is seen and played by many, my thoughts are only to add two more words to the collection; rejection , surrender

mj

Great place to start.

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by Humm

I agree to a large degree.

That said, I think it also comes down to the difference of two primary perspectives. One I will call Rejection, the other, Surrender.

Rejection is a philosophy of exclusion that starts with an ideal - that there are no inherent meanings to the process of existence existing other than the meanings assigned by the various observers and in accordance with the observer's understandings. Consequently, they start with a preconceived idea of what they are looking for, and simply Reject any experience that arises that does not fit their a-priori assumption.

Surrender, on the other hand is a philosophy of acceptance that starts with openness. Though expectations might be evident in the beginning, the fundamental mechanism of the exercise is an unending process of simply letting go of any kind of clinging, including of expectations, for or against a particular experience. The eventual result is arrival at a fundamental ground of being that anyone who holds to this activity to complete surrender can validate.

The difference is in the process of reduction to what the experiencer will label 'the Fundamental Ground of Being', though what is actually experienced is, of course, just what the experiencer sets out to find.

Hi Humm,

Let me see if I understand what you are presenting.

In a nut shell. Rejection is being rigid in ones ideas and tossing away or not listening to any other view point.

Surrender is letting go of ideas and being open to other view points which in the end may bring a better understanding or validate ones experience.

But in the end these depend on what one seeks or is seeking to find?

What if someone sees no need to reject or surrender to any view point?
Meaning one takes the enjoyment of exploring the subject with the openness that there are many ways to view it.

Of course ones understanding and beliefs may play into it and there may be disagreements/agreements. But more in the spirit of discussion.

One accepts this and just wishes to share some experiences or bounce some ideas around.

The person is not looking to "prove" or "disprove" things just wishes to explore the spectrum.

Then wouldn't it be just a discussion, without any agenda accept enjoying the exchange of thoughts?