|
Post by juliamoreland on Oct 4, 2013 3:16:46 GMT
My favorite discussion of the day was at the “time” table. Alice and Betsy already talked about this discussion earlier (which makes me reassured I wasn’t alone in feeling the awesomeness of this discussion) and Natalie was at our table too. We all hit this point of "Whoa, time man." Then we proceeded to sit and try to process for a solid chunk of time. It wasn’t that we didn’t have any thing to talk about, we (or at least I was) really struggling to wrap our minds around this abstract concept. The required elements of a discussion were all there, ready quotes from the novel, active listening, and creative individuals, but all of us struggled to process this complex question taken for granted. I loved Betsy's point about time creating false illusions and limitations in our minds! Just reading her post made me excited all over again. One thing I loved about this table is we all took a different aspect of time that captivated out attention. Betsy's was false limitations, Natalie's was "what would we do without time," mine was just trying to process the phenomenon of time. We all had different qualities of the question that we wanted to discuss, which allowed our conversation to be ever evolving along the time period that we had. Or did we eve have a time of discussing? Am I still living that moment now in some place of my brain? Or did it ever exist? What do the Buddhists think about it? This discussion left me with more questions than answers and that made me love it.
|
|
|
Post by gracepark on Oct 4, 2013 3:28:13 GMT
My most memorable discussion was probably the one with Stephanie regarding our favorite passages in the book. Although it was just the two of us at one table, it was just as engaging and thought-provoking as it would have been with three or four people. I found out that we both had some similarities regarding which passage was our favorite, and that was probably what sparked our conversation. I guess this is just one of those moments where I can’t quite find the right words to fully describe the experience. But it was definitely one of those building discussions where we would feed off each other’s ideas to ultimately come up with more questions and more possible answers. By starting off with the tangible textual evidence the conversation slowly progressed into questioning what it means to reach Nirvana – that universal peace and knowledge – and if it’s even possible to reach it. In the book we see how Siddhartha reaches that revelation of what it means to be universally tranquil after his encounter with Vesudeva and the significant influence it had on him. By the end of the book, everything seemed to fall perfectly in place, even with the odd ending. But don’t take me wrong here. I absolutely loved this book, but the discussion I had with Stephanie shook my preconceptions about Hesse’s piece. Yes - everything fell perfectly into place in the end – maybe it fell just too perfectly. We started to come up with questions that extended beyond the text. Questions like these: What would it be like to reach that ultimate Om with the universe? What would happen afterwards? Would there really be anything else to life other than just sitting by the river, listening to the never-ending sound of unity? And is it even possible for any of us to reach that state? In the fast-paced, ever-modernizing world, we found that it’s becoming harder and harder to reach that ultimate position where we can hear all things in life humming the one pitch of Om. We’re so absorbed in this principle of time that we often neglect what’s important. But that also brought up the stumping question: where can we even find that universal peace and sanctity in the midst of this society that is driven by the principles of time and structure? I don’t remember actually coming up with a valid answer for any of the questions that we posed but it was an interesting experience to look a bit outside the box to come up with ponderings that not only questioned the context of the book but also the general cycle of the world we live in.
|
|
joelk
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by joelk on Oct 4, 2013 3:34:31 GMT
I still have not found a satisfactory answer to a question that popped up in a discussion I had yesterday, and because of this curiosity I’m going to go with this discussion as the greatest one I had. When discussion Om, the following question arose:
“Are you enlightened because you hear Om, or do you hear Om because you are enlightened?”
Perhaps you believe this is simply a formulaic paradox, but in the little time we had to discuss this idea we could not come to a conclusion. In fact, some of the best things about this discussion were the small gaps of silence that filled the space between our contributions. Rather than being the “Well, we’ve exhausted that topic and I’m bored, somebody please say something already” sort of silence, though, these silences were more along the lines of the “consciously grappling with a complex idea and trying to put it into words” silence.
First, of course, we discussed the fact that Om certainly seems to be Siddhartha’s “aha!” moment in the novel. After Vasudeva tells Siddhartha to listen to the river, and Siddhartha hears Om, Hesse writes, “From that hour Siddhartha ceased to fight against his destiny. There shone in his face the serenity of knowledge…” (136). Om would thus seem to mark Siddhartha’s transformation from a searching to an enlightened state, indicating that one reaches enlightenment by finding Om.
Equally valid, however, seems to be the opposite point, the concept that Om will naturally come to someone enlightened. When Vasudeva takes Siddhartha to the river, “Siddhartha looked into the river and saw many pictures in the flowing water. He saw his father, lonely, mourning for his son; he saw himself, lonely, also with the bonds of longing for his faraway son; he saw his son, also lonely…” (134). In other words, Siddhartha sees his past experiences reflected in the river. And so, as one fellow discussee pointed out, Om could just be the result of Siddhartha’s experiences, for it is these experiences that lead him to enlightenment.
Neither perspective seems conclusive, though. Perhaps Om is too closely related to enlightenment itself to be separated from it. Either way, I don’t think any quote or passage from the novel could answer this question and leave you with no shadows of doubt. Thus, I’m still sort of pondering this idea and the implications of both answers.
Finally, we also briefly had time to touch upon the nuances of this idea. For example, is Om simply a conscious realization of your already-present unconscious enlightenment? If you don’t know Om—for example, if Siddhartha had not already known from the beginning of his search for enlightenment that Om was central to his being, as a result of his being a Brahmin’s son—will you still hear it? Or can you only hear Om if you know to listen to it?
Because of the intriguing questions asked, the discussion on “Om” was by far the my greatest and favorite.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Oct 4, 2013 3:36:27 GMT
The best discussion I participated in was the "time" table. We discussed how the idea of time not existing is silly. In the novel, Hesse's approach to how time elapses is un-detailed and Siddhartha seems to never age yet grow old at the same time. Siddhartha's lack of concern for his age makes him seem like he doesn't want to just 'go with the flow'. We also discussed how When Siddhartha leaves Kamala it could be taken as a stereotypical midlife crisis but instead his change in life has nothing to do with time and the desire to life the remainder of his life differently. Siddhartha changes his life because he wants more out of it, not because of pressure from time and the ideals of the world around him.
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by rishi on Oct 4, 2013 3:41:25 GMT
My favorite conversation last English class was in response to the prompt that asked how Siddhartha is a book about both vice and virtue. In this discussion, my group and I realized that both vice and virtue were necessary for Siddhartha to achieve enlightenment. For example, Siddhartha's vice is demonstrated as he seemingly abandons his search for Nirvana to indulge himself in the comforts of wealth and gifts from Kamala, hoping that this will make him wiser. Siddhartha's experiences with this lifestyle only confirm the belief that enlightenment can only be found within oneself; enlightenment cannot be taught. Yet, Siddhartha's virtuous decision to leave this elegant lifestyle behind to seek wisdom also acts as a catalyst towards his enlightenment: Siddhartha realizes that Nirvana must be experienced, not taught. The reader can infer from the novel that the only way to achieve enlightenment is to search for it from within. Taking this into account, it makes sense why Siddhartha never reached Nirvana while with the Samanas, the Buddha, or Kamala. Siddhartha was guided to enlightenment by the ferryman, Vasudeva. Vasudeva explains to Siddhartha, "'...but you have not heard everything. Let us listen; you will hear more'" (Hesse 134). Unlike Siddhartha's other mentors who attempt to teach Siddhartha how to be wiser and how to reach enlightenment, Vasudeva urges Siddhartha to discover these traits within himself, based on his own interpretation of the river. This was only the start of our discussion. After agreeing that enlightenment comes from within, we proceeded to discuss how Siddhartha ultimately reached Nirvana. Siddhartha finally reaches enlightenment while listening to the river, so I thought that the river must be symbolic. Why else would Hesse place such an emphasis on its role in Siddhartha's achievement? My group concurred that the river represented life (I recognize that this sounds very cliche, but it is true) and the journey to reach enlightenment. Suddenly, Mr. Parris approached our table. This was as we began to discuss how the river's "assumed" linear shape represents how all of life's experiences are different. However, Mr. Parris suggested the idea that the river might actually be a circle. This would symbolize the somewhat predictable, cyclical nature of life. Even through times of suffering, we still hope that our lives will improve. We know that our lives will improve. This is because we have experienced the cycle of suffering and alleviation before. This novel approach to visualizing the river, the journey to enlightenment, as well as the realization that one must intrinsically find enlightenment are reasons why this conversation was my favorite.
|
|
|
Post by jennyxu on Oct 4, 2013 3:54:16 GMT
Two conversations are tied for the title, "Om" and "time". In both groups, the ideas flowed naturally and the responses that followed stayed on relevant topics. For the "Om" conversation, first, each member of the group got to lay out a personal definition of "Om" that we later built upon as we exchanged ideas. We talked about how "Om" is unity, the blend of good and bad voices into a beautiful melody. The sound of the river is "Om", because the river holds the past, present, and future. It represents the sinners and the holy, that are one and the same. Also, it was suggested that while individual voices are all unique, groups of voices usually sound fairly similar, which relates back to the concept of "Om" as unity. In unity, the whole remains the same, while the pieces of the whole shift and develop. Then in the "time" conversation, we discussed different ways to look at the concept of "time". Someone brought up "Slaughterhouse 5", where the plot has no linear, sequential order, and jumps around in time instead. We contrasted that example against Siddhartha, where though there are cycles, from his lifestyles to the father and son relationships, events take place in a given order. Changes are easily seen in Siddhartha's character development, from his goal to eliminate the Self to his decision to fully embrace the Self to his enlightenment. Then, we looked at potential versus "is". We discussed the stone example, where the stone turns into soil, animal, then human in time. We danced with the ideas, whether it shows that the stone has the potential to be everything, which implies change, a form of time, or whether it proves that there is no time, because the past, present, and future are already in the stone, so all "time" is within a single point. Though we didn't reach a complete conclusion by the end, the conversation generated a lot of new ideas.
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Oct 4, 2013 4:00:09 GMT
Same as Kevin my favorite conversation was during the Picasso bull picture question. At first I loved it because I know Picasso's intended order of the bulls (I went through a big art dork phase in elementary school). I also loved it so much because we were able to look at the prompt from multiple angles. Ruby, Rachel, Kevin and I tried out multiple methods of arranging the bulls and each way we tried we were able to relate it too Siddhartha in a way none of us had thought of before. And once we laid out a roadmap for Siddhartha's journey we were able to analyze it fully. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our roadmap looked something like this: -http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/pablo_picasso/picasso_bull_plate_1.jpg This realistic bull is how Siddhartha begins as a Brahmin. He is fully formed but simple. He could stay in this life comfortably but to do that he would have to sacrifice ever feeling complete.
-http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/pablo_picasso/picasso_bull_plate_11.jpg
To find meaning he becomes an ascetic with the Samanas but this just leaves him empty and still lost.
-http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/pablo_picasso/picasso_bull_plate_5.jpg
Upon meeting the Buddha Siddhartha begins to develop and idea of what he is looking for but he still has not found the answers he wants.
-http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/pablo_picasso/picasso_bull_plate_4.jpg
At this point Siddhartha has begun his venture into the materialistic life.
-http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/pablo_picasso/picasso_bull_plate_7.jpg
But he soon realizes that his the materials in his life are slowly destroying him.
-http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/pablo_picasso/picasso_bull_plate_10.jpg
At this point Siddhartha has completely lost himself and he is at the brink of suicide.
-http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/pablo_picasso/picasso_bull_plate_8.jpg
This is Om. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although our map is slightly simplistic we had a very in-depth conversation about what each point meant. We also arranged it by most realistic to most simplistic and we were able to successfully relate it to Siddhartha. At this point we realized with creativity we could probably relate any order to Siddhartha which is what made this so fun.
Finally my favorite part was where we all talked about where we ourselves our in the journey towards "om".
|
|
|
Post by pjharris on Oct 4, 2013 4:23:22 GMT
Om With Naomi and Sheridan (Windjammers, don't hate me for having to tie this in to Om!) Earlier we had worked on a piece called "Wanting Memories" (0:00- 5:00) It's difficult to remember specifically everything that we said because I had so many wonderful discussions that day. But we connected the lyrics to Siddhartha and Vassudeva's (Dave for short) idea of the passage of time (or lack there of?) and how he tried to see through other objects point of view, and in the end he was content with seeing the beauty of the world through his own. We got a little loud and excited, kinda brushed past the strict, orderly discussion format sometimes , but we were having fun! We found an apt connection to our homework, our mandatory reading curriculum, and our song, the thing we elected to do. Our conversation still held depth, intrigue and respect but we were smiling and laughing and being creative too. When you can learn through something you love, it doesn't matter to me if you can get a little loud (shout-y at times); happiness together with knowledge is important and time well used to me. This is my Siddhartha song (Bass: Doom-doom-doom X 1,000) I am sitting here wanting memories to teach me, To see the beauty in the world through my own eyes. I am sitting here wanting memories to teach me, To see the beauty in the world through my own eyes. You used to rock me in the cradle of your arms, You said you'd hold me till the pains of life were gone. You said you'd comfort me in times like these and now I need you, Now I need you, and you are gone. I am sitting here wanting memories to teach me, To see the beauty in the world through my own eyes. Since you've gone and left me, there's been so little beauty, But I know I saw it clearly through your eyes. Now the world outside is such a cold and bitter place, Here inside I have few things that will console. And when I try to hear your voice above the storms of life, Then I remember all the things that I was told. I am sitting here wanting memories to teach me, To see the beauty in the world through my own eyes. I am sitting here wanting memories to teach me, To see the beauty in the world through my own eyes. I think on the things that made me feel so wonderful when i was young. I think on the things that made me laugh, made me dance, made me sing. I think on the things that made me grow into a being full of pride. I think on these things, for they are true. I am sitting here wanting memories to teach me, To see the beauty in the world through my own eyes. I thought that you were gone, but now I know you're with me, You are the voice that whispers all I need to hear. I know a please a thank you and a smile will take me far, I know that I am you and you are me and we are one, I know that who I am is numbered in each grain of sand, I know that I've been blessed again, and over again. I am sitting here wanting memories to teach me, To see the beauty in the world through my own eyes. I am sitting here wanting memories to teach me, To see the beauty in the world through my own eyes.
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on Oct 4, 2013 4:34:03 GMT
My most interesting conversation took place at the Om table with Joel, Caroline and Matt. I came away from that table with much more of an understanding of the concept of Om than I had when I sat down, and I wish I could remember more details. I started off by expressing that the word Om definitely holds some sort of power in terms of focus, because it allowed me to do better in the “sitting” meditation exercise in Acting 2 than when I utilize internal counting. Discussing the subjectivity of Om, Joel presented the idea that if you didn’t know the word “Om” itself, you wouldn’t hear it, but you could still achieve or discover the same goal or feeling. He also asked (in more eloquent words), “Which comes first, Om or enlightenment?” I found this question very interesting. It is difficult to answer because neither Om nor enlightenment has a specific definition, and both are subjective. Our group didn’t spend much time on trying to strictly define these two concepts, but something that came up in our discussion was Om as the-sound-the-world-would-make-if-you-held-it-up-to-your-ear. We questioned the validity of the idea a lot in our group. Thinking back to the river as full of hundreds of voices, I think that is relevant and important because it takes a smaller system than the Earth (the river) through which that “hum” of Om, of everything, is heard. It is by a river that Siddhartha initially remembers Om. It calms him and brings him back from the edge of life. He is a part of this Om, and he knows that he is insignificant compared to the whole, but that Om is beautiful and maybe even worth living for. After his life-changing nap by the river, Siddhartha lives the rest of his life by a river, listening to a combination of positive and negative voices that represent the good and bad in the world and together create the flowing of the river that, from afar, just might say Om too.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 4, 2013 4:38:24 GMT
My favorite discussion started at one table and continued at another with different people. The first was at the table with simply "Om" written. We talked about what each person thinks the word is. Some of the members viewed it as everything there is. The one thing I discerned though, was everyone has a different idea when it comes to "om". The second time the word came up, we discussed the fact that there is no unified definition. I said, and still hold the opinion that this makes the word unusable. Obviously, the idea of "om" is inherently obfuscated by the wide range of personal definitions, so it takes a considerable amount of exchanging ideas to elucidate. After last class, it has become just a bit clearer.
|
|
|
Post by rileyhatfield on Oct 4, 2013 4:39:02 GMT
My favorite discussion that we had was where the prompt simply stated, "Om." Very quickly, everyone began to input their ideas on Om and we all came to the conclusion that Om was a mixture of everything. It was life and death, love and apathy, friends, family, enemies, trials, taking walks, watching the sunrise, breaking you arm, etc. All of these things together equal Om. Not only that, but Om equaled life since all of those things put together resembled the events in an average person's lifespan. The conversation went on to asking questions like, "So does Om only happen the split second before you die? Considering that Om=Life." And as we contemplated that, we realized there was one person who had yet to speak throughout this whole conversation. So, we asked him, "What do you think of Om?" He sat there and looked at the piece of paper and then looked up at us and simply said, "I don't like it." My first response to his statement was "ARE YOU CRAZY?!" I had felt that Om was one of the most beautiful words in the English language. It not only embodies the beauty of the universe, but it also wraps up the raw, dirty, and even evil things in the world but also simultaneously bundles it all together to produce this marvelous hum-harmony deal that is far more than just 'beautiful' sounding. But, as shocked as I was, I calmly asked him why he didn't like Om. And he said, "It's just a word." Instantly my mind was blown. He was so right. Om is just a word. Two letters of the English alphabet. Om could mean anything, but it was decided by some very smart person long long ago to have the base meaning of "river." In that moment I realized that no matter how gorgeous I thought "Om" was, it was truly just a word. And words cannot sum up experience. Words cannot give the feelings of joy or sorrow, or make you understand the meaning of life. You can only truly know these things by experience and I for one was giving "Om" too much credit. Om is just a word.
|
|
|
Post by natalieskowlund on Oct 4, 2013 4:42:22 GMT
The most thought-provoking discussion I encountered surrounding *Siddhartha* was in relation to Emily Dickinson's poem "Between the Form of Life and Life"; and it is not simply because I am in love with all things poetry. Rather, I found Dickinson's idea of a fundamental difference existing between life and "the form of life" intriguing. In my interpretation of the poem, Dickinson seems to be saying that while it is often pleasant and comforting to view life as a "form," with predetermined occurrences for each individual, it is necessary for people to break out of their set paths once in a while and try something (in this case, alcohol) that may seem daunting and threatening to their current perspectives because it just might lead to a wonderful new experience. Both recognizing the "form of life" and allowing yourself to experience the spontaneity of life are essential to living a meaningful life.
And, of course, we certainly see this concept reflected through Siddhartha's journey. From the beginning of the novel, Siddhartha appears to have a concrete idea of what he wants to become and how he wants to achieve it. As Siddhartha believes, "One must find the source [of Atman] within one's own Self, one must possess it. Everything else was seeking--a detour, error" (Hesse 7). Siddhartha believes that nothing but ultimately finding the source of Atman within himself has purpose. He stares at his bottled ideal life, and for most of the novel, that is all he can do. In fact, Siddhartha is so obsessed with the notion of achieving a grande knowledge of the Self that he deviates from this focus without noticing. On his apparent journey to find the source of the Self, Siddhartha ends up living a life for a while that is practically the antithesis of the life he is seeking: selfish, superficial and materialistic. Perhaps Siddhartha focused so intensely on sticking to his preplanned journey that he forgot his original intent; he had praised the beauty of the corked wine bottle for so long that he forgot to take a sip, instead becoming completely overwhelmed by solely the exterior aesthetics.
Yet, after Siddhartha "wakes up" from his superficial portion of life spent gambling and having sex, he also makes the decision to stop simply idealizing his seeking of the soul and take a leap in hopes that he might finally find the eternal Om. Rather than constantly expecting that he will be able to find Om with no one to guide him, Siddhartha takes a chance by joining the ferryboat man on the river. Unlike with the Semanas, Kamala or Gotama, the ferryboat man has nothing evident with which to help Siddhartha in his quest. Yet, figuratively, Siddartha takes a sip of the river's wine, unsure of how it might affect him. And it is through that "sip" that Siddhartha finally achieves his long sought enlightenment.
In essence, while living by the "form of life" led Siddhartha to many important experiences, it was only when Siddhartha took a chance--that "sip of wine"--that he found what he had been searching for for so many years. Too often, people forget to take a look at their lives and analyze why they are living as they are at that point, assuming that somehow it is an inevitable part of their lives. Yet, when we take a closer look, does how we are living really fit with our values and what we had hoped our lives would turn into? If not--or even if yes, we must consider sipping that wine of deviation. Change is scary, but often it can be exactly what we need to lift us out our comfortable lives and remind us that we have the ability to grow even further as people.
The discussion certainly made me question my own current "form of life," and whether it is not time that I take a leap and try something new. I refuse to allow myself to be the victim of stasis, so perhaps I will take a trip down river and allow the motion to sweep me away to places I have never seen before.
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Oct 4, 2013 4:56:22 GMT
Hannah mentioned the Emily Dickinson poem prompt, a discussion that I particularly enjoyed as well, as I too had a realization regarding one of Siddartha's many messages. Somehow, our conversation unlocked the idea of perspective which really fascinates me. I hadn't really put a lot of emphasis on the subject until we discussed it in detail, but I feel that perspective connects with almost all of the other prompts as well. The way in which we take in experiences directly effects what we take away from them. I think that is why people often stress the importance of having an open mind, because by having a willingness to look at ideas or experiences in a new way we can learn something new from it.
In regards to perspective, Siddartha explains to Govinda about the limitations of seeking, "he is unable to find anything, unable to absorb anything, because he is only think of the thing he is seeking," and these words bring me to the conclusion that the purpose of perspective is to navigate and limit the way we take in information. And, although I normally am extremely bothered by limitations, this type of limitation seems like a necessary and positive quality. Our discussion group talked about how everything has a bazillion sides and details we can learn from, but the only way to process anything from any thing is through some sort of filter--whether that be the cup that holds water, as Hannah brought up, or the jug containing alcohol, or our view of the world that limits the way we organize our observations and experiences. In order to gain anything it is necessary to limit some of, if not most of, the endless number of ways we could take something in. Without that filter the thoughts, experiences, and potential epiphanies are all a jumbled up mess of information in our minds that can't be understood.
So...how does this connect to you? I think it is important that we are aware of the abundance of possible ways to perceive something, appreciate the vastness of it all, and attempt to grow in our mindset by being unafraid to change our opinions. Not to be cliche, but by looking through other peoples eyes and learning how someone else may process an idea or experience, we stretch our human ability to empathize and develop this little thing called human connection, and I believe that growth of empathy and in our connections is what life is all about.
|
|
|
Post by amysohlberg on Oct 4, 2013 4:58:40 GMT
Definitely the best conversation I had was at the very end. We were tossing around some vague profundities about the existence of time and the mathematical equations, and we kept struggling with the meaning of om. Was it a real concept? What does it look like? Can we find it in our world? When suddenly, Lacey drops a BOMB. "Om is the universe. Uni-verse. One verse. It all becomes one." For some reason her words really struck me and made me think about the universe as a whole, and how it's so much more vast and complicated and intricate and beautiful than our puny little lives here on the puny little earth. Not to say that our lives aren't important, but her point really helped me to view om from the lens of the entire existence. Instead of trying to fit om into life on earth, I felt a lot more like the dragon; viewing things in an eternal perspective, seeing the universe from the outside... Only in this view nothing lost its meaning. Everything is vastly important, and it all melds together into one verse. My tablemates were brilliant and helped push me out of my comfortable perspective to see things in a different way.
|
|
|
Post by danyhong55 on Oct 4, 2013 5:27:24 GMT
My favorite topic was when I was in the group discussing the concept of "Om." What first started as a typical class discussion of people more-or-less agreeing and building upon each other's arguments, Marshall, with some prompting, introduced a different spin on the idea of Om. I think that too many times in normal class discussions, we as students tend to avoid confrontation. We use phrases like "not to offend, but..." or "I don't mean to invalidate your argument, but..." I feel that this type of discussion doesn't give us all the perspectives of the topic at hand. We tend to be moderate in what we say. Every once in a while, someone will say something extreme and radical and I believe that introduction of the extreme perspectives is the greatest tool for learning in our discussions. Siddartha even said that he is glad to have experienced all walks of life, stating that it was important in reaching enlightenment in his life. To truly understand whatever we are talking about, especially something as intangible as Om, to have conflicting arguments from a variety of perspectives. During our discussion, our group was generally going around enforcing the idea that Om was everything in one and how it plays out in our lives, assuming that it existed at all. When Marshall introduced his opinion on Om, that it did not exist, his words made the rest of consider the implications of the idea that Om was only in our minds on what we had agreed upon prior to his statement. The new concept gave us even more to consider when talking about Om. Tl;dr: What made my discussion so enjoyable and great was not the content that was involved, rather the different types of ideas that went into the making the content in the discussion.
|
|