Paradox

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Paradox

Post by enigma » Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:16 pm

Marie and I have been discussing the issue of paradox lately, which came out of some recent discussions here. Today, she sent me this guru quote:

"Water is fluid, soft and yielding. But water will wear away rock, which is rigid and cannot yield.
As a rule, whatever is fluid, soft and yielding will overcome whatever is rigid and hard.
This is another paradox. What is soft is strong!"
Lao Tzu
To which i responded with this guru quote. (Sort of a battle of the guru quotes!) :


"All conundrums, all apparent riddles, paradoxes and contradictions subsist only in the split-mind base on subject-object relationship. They resolve themselves as soon as they are seen from the viewpoint of Totality."
Ramesh
As for the apparent Lao Tzu paradox above, movement is necessary to bring about change, and the 'overcoming' we're talking about is change. Naturally, that which is seen as movement (wind, water, even time) will be seen as the cause of change to that which is not fundamentally in motion. (rock) The rock is actually affecting the wind and water more than the reverse, as mountains form wind currents and the banks of a river direct the flow.

Wind and water are in constant change, affected by forces of all kinds, so we could equally call them vulnerable and weak rather than strong compared to the rock. Paradox is a perspective, and while perspectives can be useful, they never become True in any ultimate sense, so they never actually become paradoxes.

The value of this wind/water/rock analogy is to point to 'yielding' as factor of change as it relates to human suffering, which is resistance. The analogy of natural forces bringing about physical change really has no relationship to the overcoming of suffering, because suffering is caused by resistance, and yielding is simply the negation of the resistance. It's not one force overcoming another, just the ending of all forcing.

The reason the issue becomes important is that mind has a tendency to adapt all spiritual concepts to serve illusion rather than reveal it. In the case of recent discussions, it's been the notion that the truth about free will can never be known because it is a paradox. This is mind's attempt to avoid looking too deeply into the matter. All illusions CAN be revealed because they are not some sort of ineffable Truth beyond mind, they're just ideas that haven't been looked at closely enough, with a willingness to see what's actually true.

Another way mind avoids challenging it's beliefs is to declare that the REAL spiritual way is to not think. Using the mind becomes a bad thing to do that would make Jesus roll over in his grave, and yet this is more likely the attempt to avoid truth rather than realize it. Using the mind to reinforce illusion through intellectualizing is not worse than doing the same through avoidance of engaging the mind to help reveal the illusory nature of it's own ideas.

snowheight
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Paradox

Post by snowheight » Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:25 pm

enigma wrote:Paradox is a perspective, and while perspectives can be useful, they never become True in any ultimate sense, so they never actually become paradoxes.
Paradox is not paradox and there is no paradox in this ... 'nuff said on that. :lol:
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.

User avatar
smiileyjen101
Posts: 3751
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Paradox

Post by smiileyjen101 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:29 am

Yum Yum enigma :)

... and so not paradoxically neither the wind/water nor the rock are master or slave, they are in harmony together to constantly re-create within the 'all'.
It's not one force overcoming another, just the ending of all forcing.
They all 'influence' each other.

In the acceptance and use of spiritual energy... ET PON (the meaning of surrender section)
through surrender, spiritual energy comes into the world. It creates no suffering for yourself, for other humans, or for any other life form on the planet. Unlike mind energy, it does not pollute the earth and is not subject to the law of polarities, which dictates nothing can exist without its opposite, that there can be no good without bad. Those who run on mind energy
(my note: although spiritual energy very much does use the mind, only differently, which may appear complex when it is actually far easier because there is no resistances lol)
those who run on mind energy, which is still the vast majority of the Earth's population, remain unaware of the existence of spiritual energy.

It belongs to a different order of reality and will create a different world when a sufficient number of humans enter the surrendered state and so become totally free of negativity. If the Earth is to survive, this will be the energy of those who inhabit it.
yum yum yum... although .... you don't have to wait for anyone else to make that change.

please thank marie for the quote too, yum!
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com

snowheight
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Paradox

Post by snowheight » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:16 am

enigma wrote:they never become True in any ultimate sense
Can you tell me of this Truth that stands with relation to no falsity? Can you name it? Can you explain it to me enigma?

What is the Love that has no hate?
What is the Joy that has no despair?
What is the Exertion that will not exhaust us?
What is the One that requires no perspective for its very existence?
Where is the Good with no evil?
Where are the Riches that impoverish noone?
What Healer does not simply prepare the healed for the next cut?

ET pushed the limitations of language in that quote that 'jen put up, and in many others. She and I'm sure many of the other viewers of the thread sensed that same asymptotic approach to What Is and is simultaneously a Void in what you wrote. To say that you and he write artfully would be to trivialize what has been manifested, and one would have to be unconscious indeed to be blind to the Love in his and your perspectives.

I invite you to surrender to those limitations, for they are simply the limitations which apply to any dualistic expression, any form. I think this surrender is a foundation on which Tolle's work rests.

Can the non-dual be expressed with only the fabric of duality? ... and yet ... if I answer NO to this, I have simply accepted another belief. It is better instead to set the paradox aside and remember the words of the teacher that brought me to this place. To deny the paradox, however, is to mistake the light bulb for the light.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Paradox

Post by enigma » Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:19 am

.........What?
I'm not suggesting to deny the paradox, but I also mean to discourage accepting it as such. I brought the subject up again because it seemed useful to see the apparent contradiction on the subject in the words of two respected teachers so that it might fall into the proper context of perspective that can be useful to point somewhere else but not as a tool to stay where you are, and also to try to tackle the resolution of an apparent paradox that folks likely aren't so attached to that they can't follow.

Maybe my point is the same as yours in that nothing is ultimately True, including the idea that there is a paradox that can't be resolved. This is just mind painting itself into a corner.

snowheight
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Paradox

Post by snowheight » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:46 am

enigma wrote:I'm not suggesting to deny the paradox, but I also mean to discourage accepting it as such.
Accepting a paradox is something that I would also judge is indeed something to be discouraged. Sorry to be repetitive but recognizing a paradox as a dualistic limit can serve as a catalyst to answering self-enquiry, as well as serving as a sign that a philosophical discussion was both on the right track and has reached a logical place to seek fresh perspective if such contemplative thoughts should continue to arise.

The difference between accepting the paradox and recognizing it for what it is might be subtle but it can be significant.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.

snowheight
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Paradox

Post by snowheight » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:37 pm

(from this thread )
enigma wrote: For most, I think, the search is a way for the 'me' to be happy rather than a desire to escape the 'me'
snowheight wrote:Another way that this can play out is for the mind to try to cling to the immediate improvement in life situation that sudden dis identification can sometimes bring. I will not hijack the thread by calling this a paradox
Right, it seems like a way for 'me' to be happy. The irony (not a paradox. Hehe) is that the practice of presence is such a relief from the thinking mind that it's a happy experience, but it's the idea of the thinker that wants that, and so it comes back to lay claim to that experience, thereby ending it. So, many get into a routine of periodic presence that can't last. That happiness of presence isn't actually the goal, and as long as it is, permanent Peace can never be realized.
This is just another way of recognizing the subject/object split ... can the witness be witnessed? ... who gets enlightened? ... who or what dis-identifies with the mind thereby improving the life situation to which the mind seeks to cling?

It's a recursive process ... an endless loop ... when I realize I am not me I become happy.

I realize this for what it is, walk the razor's edge of living with it (... perhaps this is the ONE thing that can or should not be "accepted", so to speak?), let my mind understand that there is no perfect explanation for this, and walk on. :mrgreen:
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Paradox

Post by enigma » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:24 pm

snowheight wrote:
This is just another way of recognizing the subject/object split ... can the witness be witnessed? ... who gets enlightened? ... who or what dis-identifies with the mind thereby improving the life situation to which the mind seeks to cling?
It's not, really. The questions arise from within mind identification, and only have meaning in the context of that identification. There isn't 'somebody' to get enlightened or disidentify or witness whatever, and there doesn't need to be. Why does there have to be somebody to do this? It's an assumption based on the believed idea that there is a 'somebody' doing that stuff now. There isn't. It's a little like asking, from within your nightly dream, who is the dream character who is witnessing the dream?, and yet there isn't a somebody in the context of the dream who is witnessing it. The 'somebody', in this context, is a mind which in that moment IS all of the dream characters, and the dreamscape itself, and none of that. (Which also is not a paradox) In the waking dream, we erroneously call that a somebody, but it's just a contextually limited analogy. The point is that, from within the dream, identified as one of the dream characters, the question misses the point. It's not actually a paradox that the dreamer IS the dream.
It's a recursive process ... an endless loop ... when I realize I am not me I become happy.

I realize this for what it is, walk the razor's edge of living with it (... perhaps this is the ONE thing that can or should not be "accepted", so to speak?), let my mind understand that there is no perfect explanation for this, and walk on. :mrgreen:
Maybe there isn't a perfect explanation, but there can be perfect clarity. Don't ever accept that 'it's just a paradox' and walk on. Paradox is always framed by mind's delusions. No frame, no paradox.

snowheight
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Paradox

Post by snowheight » Sun May 01, 2011 11:18 am

enigma wrote:The questions arise from within mind identification
That is inconsistent with the idea that thoughts arise independently of assumed ownership.

I've experienced this difference ... I've experienced "doing cartwheels while remaining anchored in true nature" as kiki put it in his practice post (though I do not claim that I am there permanently) ... I've experienced thought without "I" ... thoughts arise with or without "the thinker", which is what you refer to in that sentence as "from within mind identification".

Even if the perspective is taken which accepts your apparent explanation (which is easy to do, you offer much there and it is well-stated), this also happens in the mind as does any conceptual understanding -- do you not see the paradox recurring within itself here? ... I'm reminded of the self-similarity of fractals ...

I've picked up the most fundamental way to express the Paradox (and there really is only one) from this teacher:

In perceiving that there is only One there are Two.

Stated another way: without perspective there is nothing for there to be perspective on.

It is VERY important not to take this out of the context of the fact that I do not posit this as a theory for a separate self, and therein lies the Paradox. This perspective, in fact, can only be adopted if the imperfect dualistic concept of Unity is both recognized as such and accepted as non-dual pointer. Low talks about taking the next step when one has run out of road and it seems to me that this is the point from where this step, if continued intellectual discourse is to occur, must be taken ... I perceive your apparent explanations as a trapdoor on the catwalk prior to this place and that is neither good nor bad.

Your are right that in when the thoughts of the Paradox subside, there is no Paradox ... but when I turn a light switch off the blub does not disappear.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Paradox

Post by enigma » Sun May 01, 2011 5:36 pm

snowheight wrote:
enigma wrote:The questions arise from within mind identification
That is inconsistent with the idea that thoughts arise independently of assumed ownership.
Thoughts arise without mind identification, but paradoxical questions about ownership only arise from within assumed ownership. It's only when I presume to be the doer of this that it seems meaningful to ask who is the doer of that.


Even if the perspective is taken which accepts your apparent explanation (which is easy to do, you offer much there and it is well-stated), this also happens in the mind as does any conceptual understanding -- do you not see the paradox recurring within itself here?


Accepting explanations is a mental process that accomplishes nothing. An idea accepted has as much transformative power as an idea rejected, which is to say none at all.

I've picked up the most fundamental way to express the Paradox (and there really is only one) from this teacher:

In perceiving that there is only One there are Two.

Stated another way: without perspective there is nothing for there to be perspective on.
I don't understand how the above is a paradox and I'll have to follow the breadcrumbs and see if I can find it.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Paradox

Post by enigma » Sun May 01, 2011 6:33 pm

snowheight wrote:
I've picked up the most fundamental way to express the Paradox (and there really is only one) from this teacher:

In perceiving that there is only One there are Two.

Stated another way: without perspective there is nothing for there to be perspective on.

It is VERY important not to take this out of the context of the fact that I do not posit this as a theory for a separate self, and therein lies the Paradox. This perspective, in fact, can only be adopted if the imperfect dualistic concept of Unity is both recognized as such and accepted as non-dual pointer. Low talks about taking the next step when one has run out of road and it seems to me that this is the point from where this step, if continued intellectual discourse is to occur, must be taken ... I perceive your apparent explanations as a trapdoor on the catwalk prior to this place and that is neither good nor bad.

Your are right that in when the thoughts of the Paradox subside, there is no Paradox ... but when I turn a light switch off the blub does not disappear.
In reference to your last comment here, I don't mean to say that the paradox goes away as a result of not thinking about the paradox. What I mean to say is that the paradox (all paradox) is framed by certain assumptions that are not ultimately true. Mind builds a framework of ideas that are accepted as true, but are actually contextually bounded. These inherent limitations are the source of the questions that lead to other ideas that presume to resolve the limitations, and this forms an apparent paradox because the questions themselves were formed by the limitations inherent in the idea. Without the limited ideas there is no question, and therefore no paradox. IOW, the resolution to a paradox is not a correct answer or the ignoring of the question, or the surrender to paradox, but rather the dissolution of the question.

Again, the example of the apparent paradox in the question "If God is all powerful, can he create something that is too heavy for him to lift?" The question itself arises from within a framework of false ideas about a personal, thinking god who creates objects and tries to lift them. From within this false framework, the question has no answer and may be declared as a paradox, and yet there is no paradox, just the mental confusion formed by false ideas that contain their own boundaries.

The questions about who is the doer are formed within a framework of false ideas about personal doership. The question arises, if I am not the doer, then who is? This question can only arise from within the false framework of the belief in doership, and it's the falsity of this framework that is being pointed to when it is said that you are not a doer. It doesn't imply that something else is the doer, it means to say doership is a false idea. Seeing this does not resolve some paradox, it prevents it from forming in the first place. It doesn't answer any questions, it dissolves them.

As I understand it, your fundamental paradox is the idea that 'we' are both one and many. The 'we' betrays the false perspective that forms the false framework on which the imaginary paradox is formed. The 'we' has not been established beyond an appearance, and the appearance of multiplicity does not make multiplicity a truth any more than the appearance of a mirage constitutes a pool of water.

User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6354
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Paradox

Post by Sighclone » Tue May 03, 2011 5:26 pm

I need to compliment both snowheight and enigma here.

There has been some sensitivity expressed to the moderators about threads which spin off into endless arguments, show less and less love and respect, get caught up in minutiae, get darker and darker, more and more personal, and are actually disguised arenas for ego battles (albeit that badboy the "spiritualized ego" whose hallmark is "holier than thou, just watch me.") That sensitivity has caused us to reconsider the mission of this forum, and the levels of tolerance for styles, personalities, intentions and topics. Do not ask me to elaborate on that at this point, please. We do not discuss moderator issues while they are "in conference."

There is no doubt in my mind and experience that this forum is very rare and special. It is firmly moderated and will continue to be so. It is an arena for strong evolving (and ultimately seen through) minds and hearts to express very sensitive personal stages of development and get international independent anonymous counsel of varying value. That will not change.

That said, so far in this thread something else is going on. This is a deeply intellectual discussion by two fine writers with a slightly different perspective on two fascinating spiritual topics, paradox and doership. Essays, books and satsangs have been devoted to these, by many authors; they are not trivial topics and they are not easy ones.

It is my personal opinion that such topics could and should be allowed to run their course, so long as there is constant respect for viewpoints. Sometimes the love leaks in through the swordfight on the field of Arjuna...I feel that here.

Now, you jockeys...take on this one: The ultimate paradox is is the heart sutra: "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form." That is even harder for me to wrangle with than the "I - Thou" issue that Buber illuminated.

But I do believe that in the self-referential and perpetually dualistic stage of the mind (language, logic, polarities) that paradoxes simply arise as a natural outcome of these underlying given parameters. I do not believe they can be "seen through so they don't become a paradox." I do believe that enlightenment ends the impact, freight and weight of any mental paradox, however. And that shift also ends concern about many things. Adya once defined enlightenment as "the end of worry about inconsistencies and imperfections" (I paraphrase slightly.)

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Paradox

Post by enigma » Tue May 03, 2011 6:51 pm

Sighclone wrote:I need to compliment both snowheight and enigma here.

There has been some sensitivity expressed to the moderators about threads which spin off into endless arguments, show less and less love and respect, get caught up in minutiae, get darker and darker, more and more personal, and are actually disguised arenas for ego battles (albeit that badboy the "spiritualized ego" whose hallmark is "holier than thou, just watch me.") That sensitivity has caused us to reconsider the mission of this forum, and the levels of tolerance for styles, personalities, intentions and topics. Do not ask me to elaborate on that at this point, please. We do not discuss moderator issues while they are "in conference."

Okay, that seems to clear up some confusion about why I don't see the mental masturbation and ego battles and trolls that some are talking about here......I AM the troll! Heheeeee. It also explains why my posts on the subject haven't been responded to; I'm the troll that hopefully will go away if I'm ignored. Oops!:oops:

I'm not sure if some words of explanation are useful, but....From my perspective, I see some core discussions happening, which is the only thing that makes this forum a potential tool for waking up rather than staying asleep, and much of what goes on here IS a collective effort to stay asleep. Core discussions are antithetical to ego. They can be uncomfy and resistance can come up and be projected all over the place. When I encounter a lot of resistance, I abandon the discussion because everybody tends to get sucked into the drama of the apparent battle and stops 'looking', but I consider a little resistance, mental twisting and wriggling about, to be very normal, and I don't see it as an ego battle and it's not about trying to disrupt or win a sword fight or whatever. It's about waking up, and there's always the risk on a spiritual forum that somebody is going to talk about that.

As far as mental masturbation, that happens as part of this resistance, but it's not always a pleasurable diversion as the label implies. It's often mind looking for an escape from the obvious by burying it under levels of conceptualization, assumption and diversion. If folks need to 'go there' I'm willing and able to follow them and see if the escape hatch is really there.

Given that, I also recognize that many here have no interest in doing what it takes to wake up, which is fine, and so I become an irritant and a distraction from whatever they actually are doing here. As such, I'll back off a bit and try not to disturb anybody's slumber too much.

User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6354
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Paradox

Post by Sighclone » Tue May 03, 2011 6:59 pm

Moving this discussion to a new thread on Trolling, Mission of this Forum, etc, here

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Paradox

Post by enigma » Tue May 03, 2011 7:02 pm

Sighclone wrote:
Now, you jockeys...take on this one: The ultimate paradox is is the heart sutra: "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form." That is even harder for me to wrangle with than the "I - Thou" issue that Buber illuminated.

But I do believe that in the self-referential and perpetually dualistic stage of the mind (language, logic, polarities) that paradoxes simply arise as a natural outcome of these underlying given parameters. I do not believe they can be "seen through so they don't become a paradox." I do believe that enlightenment ends the impact, freight and weight of any mental paradox, however. And that shift also ends concern about many things. Adya once defined enlightenment as "the end of worry about inconsistencies and imperfections" (I paraphrase slightly.)

Andy
In your nightly dreams, the mind ( a concept rather than an object) within which the dream appears is empty in that it is fundamentally devoid of form. Even if you assign form to thoughts, the intelligence out of which those thoughts form is devoid of all thought; all 'mind objects'. This intelligence is clearly formless, and yet the thoughts/mind objects/dream characters that appear within mind are not somehow separate from mind. The dragon in the dream IS mind appearing as a dragon. The 'form' of the dragon IS the formless mind. The formless mind IS the dragon.

Post Reply