In having a hypothetical dialogue, if Person “A” were willing to strip off all the “lingo” or “sectarian terminology” from what he was saying, and simply state the facts, and if in doing so, Person “B” were to be able to listen openly, because he was not stumbling over some disagreeable terminology, and if this allowed Person “B” to understand what Person “A” was trying to say, and possibly agree with it…. then wouldn’t that indicate that there was a deeper meaning behind what Person “A” was saying, that both could participate in? (just simple reality)
Here is an example:
Person “A” believes God made the birds, but simply states:
The bird is beautiful and red.
Person “B: who believes that Shiva made the birds states:
Yes, The bird is beautiful and red.
Is that not showing that there is a deep reality which transcends the personal point of view which the two persons could have disagreed on?
But if Person “A” says…. yes, but I must tell that person that God made the birds, what attitude is that showing? Is it showing that Person “A” is interested in the reality to be chatted about, or is it simply Person “A” wanting to be right, and prove that Person “B” is wrong, or to promulgate his views?
We as humans (including myself) can be very underhanded in what our motives are…. we should do our best to communicate with others, not using terminology which creates stumbling blocks to the listeners openness.
But apart from this, if we realize that we are all of limited understanding, and that “Reality” is far greater than we can ever UNDERSTAND, it can free us to EXPERIENCE reality, and have others participate in it……..
Reality is Dharma 