Open-mindedness distinction; Being vs. Content

[Identity]

Was thinking about the topic of open-mindedness more, when this distinction came to me and gave clarity.

We could sub-divide open-mindedness into two categories:

To content; this is basically being open to different perspectives, to different beliefs, to claims and ways of “physical” existence. It’s within the relative domain.

To being; this is being open to what existence IS. To source. To dissolving into nothingness. To surrendering of ego. The absolute domain.

Open-mindedness to content is more messy and confusing, whereas openness to being more simple, not easy, simple.

Of course this distinction ultimately collapses again, but it gave me some clarity, so maybe it will do the same for you. 

[Jacobsrw]

Interesting distinction. I like this example.

However, If one is open to Being would they not be automatically open to content? Since Being contains ‘content’ within it.

Although one not open to Being and open to content is common. Stage orange, materialistic, which pervades the entire globe.

[Identity]

Well, the distinction dus start to fade and they would be related.

However, we could imagine a zen-master who is awake af, yet is dogmatic about stage blue cultural beliefs.

[Jacobsrw]

11 minutes ago, Identity said:

However, we could imagine a zen-master who is awake af, yet is dogmatic about stage blue cultural beliefs.

True.

However, he wouldn’t be enlightened in that case. To be enlightened means transcending beyond dogma and belief altogether. One cannot be open to Being while equally closed to aspects within it, otherwise that would contradict being the openness to begin with.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Jacobsrw