When does the granting of beingness cross the line and become excessive reasonableness?
First a definition of terms; "Granting of Beingness". This is a similar concept to Namaste, I recognize the god in you, that is used in some parts of the world. Granting beingness is to be fully present with another, and to have the attitude that they are someone who is also capable of being present with you and welcome to. (Its a scientology term. OH MY!) My recent thoughts on the subject of granting beingness or namaste is that perhaps they are analogous to love. Love as a state rather than an activity. Love as the most basic state consicousness is capable of as it arises out of the void of infinite potential. (And a much forgotten and buried state, in the way we live and are lost in thinking. But something that enquiry and reflection can bring us back to so that we may use it as a point of reference in life)
Then there is excessive reasonableness, this is a term scientologists will be familiar with and its connotations. It is based in the concept that "being reasonable" is frequently a product of allowing unconscious influences to sway or help justify actions that are not in line with larger goals or intent. Silly example, Joe lets his friend drive after drinking because he doesnt want to embarass the friend by making a scene. That would be a case where Joe is being "reasonalbe", taking into account things that really shouldnt be a factor in the specific decision he is making. Instead he should stay true to superior principles. But in the culture of scientology, really it means doing anything that isnt gung ho for scientology. As in perhaps allowing for thought or action that doesnt directly align with the goals of the Church. In scientology the notion of excessive reasonableness is used to control members, even when they are not being reasonable (making justifications for incorrect action), but actually reasoning.
So we have this dichotomy, this juxtaposition of two elements that describe some counter purpose or conflict. Or so it seems. On one hand the notion that implies a very broad tolerance, and acceptance and even desire for connection and sharing. And on the other a concept that warns, that suggests sticking to your guns about beliefs and certainty in them. Are these at odds?
We live in a universe built on the dichotomy, the either or, energy a function of separation between potentials...right and wrong the driving force in peoples lives, or perhaps more truthfully, yet unacknowledged, life vs death. How strong is the desire to remain alive? Surely as strong as the resources we have in us to stay alive! As that is how far we will go to do so.
Into the mix of our lives any new element seems to be automatically placed into position to be one part of a pair of opposite forces. And thus in a culture that has the elements of "granting beingness" and "excessive reasonableness" there could arise the occasion where they conflict.
I suggest that we need to need to develop the ability to have a point of enquiry in our lives where we do not give credence to dichotomy, where we allow the elements to float, to exist without relationship to each other. And not only in the the examples given here but in any aspect of life. And in that state much of the mechanics of life fall apart, at least in the moment, to then be created again if we wish in a manner more suitable, or left to dissolve as irrelevant. (see Matrix Energetics).
So back to granting of beingness vs excessive reasonableness...I ask "What would Jesus Do?". What would jesus to, with his seeming policy of unconditional love, in the face of something so offensive to him that he feels compelled to action against it? Say money changers in the temple? We know he vandalized their operations.....could he be so outraged and violent yet still unconditionally loving?
Yes. If he were to simply not hold anything as dichotomy. To simply be, internally silent, fully aware, totally willing to tolerate anything, as if singular point also have other aspects of self that dont make reference to it, but do exist. The danger being making a dichotomy out of the non dual vs the dual, when perhaps conceptually it could be thought of as parrallel? Truth and not truth co-existing. The tetralemmas of Nagarjuna? In which things can be both true and untrue simultaneously.
I posit that granting of beingness can never cross the line to excessive reasonableness. They are false dichotomies. And in fact all dichotomy is artificial, our creation to "put something there to play with" when our basic nature "I am".
So Delicious Irony, the motivations and structure we live in, a created but false dualistic construct of a consciousness fundamentally singular.