From a materialistic perspective, tolerance is defined as that which somehow is seen mostly negatively in that one has to put up with things that is disliked. Or the point is that somehow one is better than the other to be acknowledged albeit with some contempt in some cases. There is an air of superiority about in that the recipient of our acceptance of the other is based on an inclination that there is always a sense of negativity in operation to one’s own privileged position. A kind of condescending way of being where the other is necessarily downgraded to a level of perhaps acknowledgement but pity in many ways like one may notice for instance with aspects of positive discrimination where although relatively fine still the disadvantaged may be seen to be so due to some perceived apparent lack.
One therefore feels that the other is really one not to be a comrade with but simply endured for being different. There is at best a sympathy or a kind of an understanding that one needs to show clemency that is be merciful and yet again in this mode of being, one remains far from being open but more a sense of still having the upper hand where the other is not given its dues for being but all a more camouflaged way of settling up one’s own agenda where me-ism remains rampant or let’s say there is charity of work in this process and where this be so the subject always feels on a different more elevating posture. The call is to move away from such condescending tones and be appreciative of the other as is revealed face to face or as one encounters in the world. Or a question of seeing the other as a warmth per se rather than of trying to be nice and or similar. It is about relating to each other via a dynamic of being without having to show or pronounce the other’s abjection.
From a transcendental perspective, the other is as much respected as the self. Or those divisive barriers may not be. Rather, the other and the self is seen as a synergy of being where there is no separatism at work….or where a common beingness prevails with no me nor the other but an usness in operation. All barriers are set aside and verily a camaraderie prevails. To be sure that sense of being calls for a consciousness away from the temporal where what always emerges is that sense of unity in being. A rare call but one where there is no separation or seeking to thrive on what separates the self rather than unite. Such a state moves away from the mode of tolerance as widely perceived. More it is about being with others in a not dissimilar way that one is in the world ; a sense where one or any other likewise is as equally of paramount importance.
The other is respected just as oneself, nothing less or more for that matter. What one does is to acknowledge the frailties of being and in this mode, one verily is prepared to accept or bear insults and dishonour from others. It is not that one is seen higher or lower in the equation of relationships with the other but more of aiming towards recreating a calmness without confrontation where perhaps a material form of tolerance may well expose the subject to retaliate when challenged. The working strategy could not be clearer in the non mundane way way whereas in the former there is always a hidden agenda in that the other is essentially not like oneself as all is based on a temporary essence of being whilst in its transcendental form there is no such issue. All living entities share a common being and that respect is accorded naturally or extended to one and all without being conditional. A synergy of being is seen as the essence of being just like a tree which tolerate so much of human’s frailties in terms of abuse and not well cared for and like the earth bombed and polluted and yet a calmness is maintained as both the earth and the trees are not communicated to as these are seen as inanimate in spite of Francis of Assisi and Vaishnavas having contrary views or appreciating all forms of being.
The alternative view of tolerance means that one accepts the other’s deficiencies as the tree or earth would unlike the material type which initially relegate others into a lesser being where the self is always seen and viewed as more essential.In Vedic culture, the tree is a living being and earth overall is seen as mother. While the tree tends to accept abuse from one and all likewise the tree is there always forgiving and or not putting the air of superiority over humans. Let’s say there is a pure humility at work which is proposed where the other is viewed as never to be despised and or pulling ranks via the mode of giving credence to the other only due to the subject always holding the upper hand in relationships. This may not be so in its transcendental form where there is an in- built respect of the other in the first instance. A question of never the other or me in a spirit of division but more of a comprehension that all is about perceiving that in-situation of being in a more non divisive way.A way that refers to of togetherness in a praxis rather than a mere idea, or an actual act of appreciation of every other rather than a mere acknowledgement that there are others to be sure but a few or some including the ‘me’ and or some chosen ones are of a different stature and more precisely definitely better and so one out of compassion feels for the other/others and so delineate some corrective measures to ‘help’.
In this sense, the aspect of help merely perpetuates an on going aspect of fragmentation which sure may lead to friction since the other is always perceive as a lesser being. There is no respect and humility at the base of the transcendental form which purports to do in that tolerance becomes that which makes one essentially prepares to accept and or bear insult and dishonour from others. A kind of a training to be humble and or respect the other non conditionally.