Hi David:

I find it easy to accept.

Paradox is at the heart of the universe. Opposites are united as well as separated, and the transformative power that unites and separates them is the creative power of the universe. Although separation and unification are equally true, the Truth of unification is the higher and ultimate Truth.

Thus, the cosmic paradox is a Triple Paradox because it always involves a pair of opposites that are both united and separated, together with the transformative, transcendental and creative power that unites and separates them.

In science, the Triple Paradox is known as the  Principle of Complementarity. In the Far East, it is symbolized by the Taoist Yin/Yang symbol. In Christianity, the Triple Paradox is known as The Holy Trinity.

Ask paradox3. She knows all about the Triple Paradox.

GR

Good topic!

I don't think I'll respond at the moment to the question. I might sound too dumb after Arminius. I must say the essay  was great and that website Obit.com  is a treasury . Everytime you read one article there are 4 new ones to read. I have saved about 50 articles to read. As you know my husband passed away last year so I can relate after the fact to some of the articles.

 O.K. I'll try .     I suppose what comes to my mind is Buddhism -sp- and the art of learning detachment which is very difficult  to practice. I read a lot but I doubt I'll ever learn how or the true meaning of it. Society teaches us to attach ourselves to people in the name of love and caring from the day of our birth onwards. Then the day comes when we may have to let go as in the death of a loved one and then society sort of wants to run and hide or deny death. We are conditioned by society's expectations of us, hence the paradox. Its hard to love and learn how to let go.

Gosh, am I making sense? I'm nervous .

I agree with you Arm, but you are, I think you'd agree, in the minority in that ability.

Or, perhaps I'm looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. Perhaps its the certainty that traditional church doctrine has always promoted that's less and less attractive to most people who, though not as intentional in their acceptance of paradox as you are, nonetheless sense that there's a much grander vision of faith and unity.

Which leads to a narrower and smaller demographic in the pews.

Hmmm.

David

I confess that when I first saw the site I was a bit uncertain how to take it. It's an effort, as you may have seen of the folks who started the Revealer, which has evolved into "Killing the Buddha, a religion magazine for people made anxious by churches". I highly recommend reading their Manifesto. I think they'd be quite comfy here in the café, although if you think my bedevilment of sockpuppets is challenging, I'm quite sure you'd be scandalized by what they would say. 

I think that this hiding from death is a recent development. After all, it wasn't that long ago that death was very common even in the developed countries of the world. And our faiths used to be good at helping us to accept that transition.

I think you are absolutely correct however, in that it is hard indeed to learn to love and let go. Perhaps part of accepting the paradox is come to realize that what we love is not the "form" but the "substance" of the people we hold dear.

Well, my friend, I'd say from the eclectic interest you show in faith perspectives that you're certainly on the path. "True meaning" would be a bit of a misnomer as I understand Buddhism, as detachment requires letting go of all expectations, including the existence of a single "True" meaning. The Manifesto I linked to above includes a story of a Buddhist seeker that explains the concept pretty well.

David

David quote: I think they'd be quite comfy here in the café, although if you think my bedevilment of sockpuppets is challenging, I'm quite sure you'd be scandalized by what they would say. 

Me? Scandalized? Not at all!  I didn't take time to check out the whole website yet but I will.

"What is it about the paradox that so many find so hard to accept?"

Now I a fourfold vision see,
And a fourfold vision is given to me;
Tis fourfold in my supreme delight,
And threefold in soft Beulah's night,
And twofold Always.  May God us keep
From Single vision & Newton's sleep.

--from William Blake's Letters on Sight and Vision

I think it is accurate to say that we are taught not to concern ourselves with the paradoxes that occur around us ALL THE TIME.  We have been taught that what we see is what there is, that we are all passive consumers of existence so that, these worlds that we end up inhabiting are objectively REAL.

Personally, I'd LOVE to read a version of the Passion that is more in tune with Quantum Mechanics, which would show the Passion from Multiple Points of View, that contradict each other, that supplement each other, etc etc.  Jesus as a Criminal, Jesus as a Fool, Jesus as a Living Story, Jesus as not real in any sense, and so forth.

So, taking the Kantian view, there IS a Real Universe, but we can never apprehend it entirely but through world views.  The Real Universe cannot be said in words, it is non-verbal and it is formless.  When we enter the picture, it gains more stability and form.  I think any attempt to think of G_d or communicate aboot the subject is of the second kind, something stable.

So, the triple paradox:

1)  There is a REAL UNIVERSE out there, unknown and formless.

2)  Our world views take bits of that REAL UNIVERSE and give it form.

3)  G_d is ever without form, but we give Sie form.

Of course, this is another world view.

The Triple Paradox:

Formlessness⇔Transcendental Power⇔Form

Hi Inanna:

Don't forget, She's plastic. Whatever form we give Her is our artistic choice. And if we don't like one particular model, we can lump and re-mold Her.

Her earliest known depictions were broad hips and big breasts.

Why is it, do you think, that we've been "taught" that?

I ask because I wonder if it isn't, when a society is living hand-to-mouth in dangerous environments, a survival mechanism. To understand the world in multiple ways as you and Arm express requires a certain level of security so that contemplation doesn't result in catastrophe.

As the fundys like to put it "a Buddhist thinks that all is illusion until they step in front of a moving bus." A derisive and derogatory caricature to be sure, but with a certain element of the practical.

Is it possible to achieve a society stable enough that we can, in more than a handful of cases, expend energy in that contemplation that could transform us?

**  I haven't been posting on this thread, but, I have been reading it and pondering -- just naming myself as lurker, and thanking those who are posting...**

Hi GoldenRule,

The power to hold it with integrity.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi GR quote:  "As the fundys like to put it "a Buddhist thinks that all is illusion until they step in front of a moving bus." A derisive and derogatory caricature to be sure, but with a certain element of the practical."

May I add this:

Quote:

Once, in the sixties on the Jersey shore, I was foolishly body-surfing in such exhilaratingly powerful waves and cross-currents generated by a passing hurricane that I lost all fear. For though I am not a very strong swimmer, I am a strong logician, and the following syllogism appeared to me as infallibly correct:

I have become one with the ocean; and
the one thing that cannot possibly drown in the ocean is the ocean;
Therefore I cannot possibly drown in the ocean.

I am still alive only because practical survival sanity overrode both mysticism and logic.

I am lurking along with Pinga. You have my thanks too.

Arminius quote:

"Don't forget, She's plastic. Whatever form we give Her is our artistic choice. And if we don't like one particular model, we can lump and re-mold Her.

Her earliest known depictions were broad hips and big breasts."

 I've gone totally insane and its all your fault  . I had better get off the WC while there's still time.

I read a lot of Buddhism (banging my head against a wall) . It seems the great achievement is to become "nothingness"? Nirvana is a state of nothingness? It doesn't sound all that appealing to me. Zen teaches the same?  I also read that detachment doesn't lead to God? But then....there is no God in Buddhism. I found some God.....!!!....Maybe this is something else?

Quote:

 For where Buddha finds our desires too strong, Christ finds them too weak. He wants us to love more, not less: to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength. Buddha "solves" the problem of pain by a spiritual euthanasia: curing the disease of egotism and the suffering it brings by killing the patient, the ego, self, soul or I-image of God in man.

Hi stardust:

The great achievement in Buddhism is not really to become nothingness but to become aware of the nothingness that we ultimately are.

While alive, be a dead man

—Thoroughly dead—

And act as you will,

And all is well.

-Ancient Zen Proverb

T.S. Eliot, in his LITTLE GIDDING, put it this way:

A condition of complete simplicity

(Costing no less than everything)

And all shall be well and

All manner of things shall be well.

There you have it, the Eastern and Western version of the importance of striving for nothingness.

(The nothingness that we ultimately are does, of course, possess the transcendental power to become everything, which we also and ultimately are.)

Arminius

Oh yes of course, its all so easy.

Your quote: "While alive, be a dead man"

I think I'll wait until tomorrow .

Oh maybe I got it! We must become aware that we are  nothing so there's nothing to lose. Its just illusion that we on occasion appear to be something?  When we are nothing we are everything; everything is nothing. Its all so very simple after all .......kidding you.......

My new chant : " I am nothing. I am nothing. I am nothing...". How long will it be until I realize I am everything...? 

 Seriously, its something like the sacrifice of the ego concept in traditional  Christianity isn't it?

Hi stardust:

To me, being nothing is being eternal energy/spirit, as a unitive whole in a state of synthesis, which posesses the transcendental, creative or transformative power to transcend what it is and become its opposite while remaining what it is. Thus, it transcended its nothingness and became everything while remaining nothing, it diversified and mutliplied itself while remaining an inseparable whole, it uniquefied itself while remaining one and the same. (The cosmic paradox in action)

The nothing I speak of is, of course, not an absolute nothing. It is unquantified energy/spirit, which is ultimately unquantified, but nevertheless possesses the creator quality to transcend itself while remaining what it is. Using its creator quality, it quantified part of itself, subjected part of that quantified energy/spirit to chaos, and the outcome of that chaos are the forms that we are and observe. In other words, unquantified energy/spirit quantified, chaotified, multiplied, diversified, uniquefied and eventually humanified itself while remaing unquantified and eternal spirit/energy as a unitive whole in an inseparable state of synthesis.

The totality of energy/spirit is a singularity. Despite it quantifying, chaotifying, multiplying, unqiuefying and humanifying itself, it remains an eternal singularity of unquantified energy in a state of synthesis. This, in my imagination, is the "nothing" that we ultimately are.

As the forms self-named Homo sapiens we are temporary, separate, and unqiue. As energy/spirt we not only are utterly one but forever.

Unfortunately, most people identify themselves only as individuals of the species Homo sapiens. Hardly anyone identifies themselves as eternal energy/spirt, in a state of oneness. Yet as energy/spirit we are forever, while as human individuals we exist for a very limited period of time only.

The cosmic paradox, stated simply, means that all diametric opposites are united as well as separated, with the unification being the greater and ultimate truth, and the creative or transcendental power of energy/spirit what unites and separates them. 

stardust,

to help you with your query in regards to Nirvana as nothingness, let me try to illustrate using as few jargon words as possible.

Ok.  You know crosswalks, right?  Those little painted lines that tell both pedestrians and cars that pedestrians can cross the road.  Some of these crosswalks even have buttons.  So how does this work, I think?  Is there some kind of invisible barrier that prevents cars from crossing?  Is there some kind of coercive law that causes pedestrians to use the crosswalk?  Or is it some kind of agreement between the pedestrian, the driver, and the state?  I say the last one.

The rules of crosswalks can be simply stated along the lines of "If a driver sees a pedestrian using the crosswalk, the driver is to stop before the crosswalk and not cross until the pedestrian is not using the crosswalk."

Another way of stating this is to call it a Social Game or a Game Rule.  All of our interactions happen according to predictable, testable, and observable actions (I could even call them 'laws').

We live in a world rife with Social Games.  How we interact with family members, ferinstance, is via Social Games.  How we walk along the sidewalk is a Social Game.  How we greet each other is a Social Game.  And so forth.

It is easy to think of crosswalks, because we experience them all the time, as some kind of Hard n Fast reality rule, like gravity or light.

Got all that?

Let's move on.

Lets take a candle flame.  Just the candle flame.  What are its qualities?  It gives of light.  It gives off heat.  If we have the instruments, we can see that different parts of it are of different temperatures.  We can find out that it is a chemical reaction.  It gives off soot, which contain a fabulous form of molecule called Buckyballs.  And so forth.

So I go, what does that candle flame need to exist?  It needs, among other things, oxygen, it needs gravity, it needs a wick, it needs a candle to hold the wick.  It needs certain forces in nature to be of a certain magnitude.  All of these things are necessary for the candle flame to exist.  The Buddhists call this Dependent Origination.  Nothing exists by itself.  Nothing acts on the world by itself.

Now we'll have to get a bit less concrete here.  But hang in there.

What is the difference between you and a family member?  Take a think on this one.  Really.

To the Buddhists, the difference between you and your family member is a matter of perception.  Of choice.  But that it is a Social Game to ignore that aspect of existence.  Similar to a rock.  Or the ocean.  Or existence.

So then, what Nirvana is, is a state that people can reach where they can take a look at all of reality, all of us, and realize what is what, what are Social Games and what are rules of reality (things like gravity and light) and, thus, the interconnectness of all things.

Just think at how powerful this state can be.

If you would like to read an easy book on the subject, you need go no further than Alan Watt's Psychotherapy, East and West.

I hope all of this have made it a bit more clear for you, m'dear.

Thank you m'dear Inanna for telling me all aboot this. I don't have a problem with the interconnectedness of all things. The hip bone's connected to the thigh bone........ It seems I'm walking along some street that has no name because I can't properly articulate where I am in my thoughts. I like Buddhism. I have Buddhist books, can't spell the names.

Poor Arminius ..!  I'm always putting you through the wringer giving you a hard time. Thanks for replying again.

Your quote :  "being nothing is being eternal energy/spirit". Guess what? I think I'm satisfied with that!  Good for a kindergarten student such as I .

"Be a dead man" sort of means understand life the way it is and don't be disturbed about fair or stormy weather because all is well in the larger scheme of things?  Still, it implies inaction  or do nothing, feel nothing...rise above it all....?.....sort of like being  a mental patient sitting in a rocking chair in the asylum....I think I'd much rather go fishing with Jesus  but I do know we must combine all aspects of life together re connectedness and oneness. We have to rise above looking  at life through a keyhole.

Is it the Buddhist or Hindu monks who wander the earth with begging bowls? If we all choose to do that who will provide the food for our begging bowls?  We'll be a scary lot of skeltons but then it doesn't matter since our bones are only an illusion. See....I'm getting it!

Hi stardust:

I'm masochistic—I love it when you give me a hard time.

Tere are begging monks or "holy men" in both Hinduism and Buddhism. In Zen Buddhism, however, there is no begging; the monks raise what little food they need. That's how I like it; I don't support begging monks.

The "illusion" or "maya" of Hinduism, Buddhism or Taosim is often mistunderstood. The real or ontological reality is not illusiory, it only is unfathomable or ineffable, meaning that it can't be grasped or expressed by concepts alone.

The reason for that is that the ontological reality is in a state of  synthesis, which is antithetical to analysis. Something that is in a state of synthesis is totally at one: everything is united with everything else; everything depends on everything else; everything is influenced by everything else. Moreover, everything is in a constant state of flux, and the rate of change is as fast as the speed of light, and for that reason alone nothing can be pinned down with absolute certainty.

As I said, the real, objective or ontological reality is not illusiory. What is illusiory, though, is our world of concepts. When T.S. Eliot says "a condition of complete simplicity (costing no less than everything)" then he means that this condition of complete simplicity costs our world of concepts, or the belief in the absolute truthfulness of our concepts.

Quick now, here, now, always,

A condition of complete simplicity

(Costing no less than everything)

And all shall be well and

All manner of things shall be well.

-From LITTLE GIDDING by T.S.Eliot

Arminius

 They looked and out of the mist there arose the Great Ascended Master Arminus from the WonderCafe. Behold.......his sayings:

"The "illusion" or "maya" of Hinduism, Buddhism or Taosim is often mistunderstood. The real or ontological reality is not illusiory, it only is unfathomable or ineffable, meaning that it can't be grasped or expressed by concepts alone.

As I said, the real, objective or ontological reality is not illusiory. What is illusiory, though, is our world of concepts."

This is pretty good. I feel a bit better now . I jumped out of my skin and I'm dancin' round in my bones  . Thanks!

You are welcome.  All of what I wrote was toward trying to give you some idea as to the concept of Nirvana.

You also were asking Arm/mentioning to Him that you have come across some notions that Buddhists could perhaps maybe believe in G_d.

You know how everyone learns differently?  Or how it can be said that we all have different skill sets?  Some people are good with people, some people are really good with animals, some people you just don't want them near your car or computer...

Well, it is a very similar thing with Buddhists.  Not everyone can achieve Nirvana in the same way...so some of them, as teaching tools, use such things as, perhaps, maybe 'G_ds' or beings...

So, to apply that to Christ...Christ is the idea, the notion, that is believed in to get the believer into practicing agape etc etc...and to take it literally (he got strung up onna cross, etc etc) is to keep yourself from reaching your ultimate Goal...

I think that, at least so far, this qualifies as one of those serious conversations Pinga was hoping for.

Thanks John, Arm, stardust, inna.

Well put. (and rather succinctly too)

I think this is one of the most significant issues.

Most people struggle with the challenge of moving beyond the understanding of equating the concept with the reality and continually fall back to the state of "my concept is the only reality".

We see this most clearly in the extreme positions of both atheists and theists, who insist that only their understanding of Creation makes sense.

However, even with the best of intentions, we all do this to some extent. We fall back on anthropomorphising "God" or using "real world" shorthand to interpret our experiences of the Holy.

We're not capable, as human beings, of fully and permanently grasping the ineffable "reality" of Creation. As Greek mythology tells it, when Zeus revealed his "glory" to one of his mistresses, she was burned to a crisp.

Hi stardust:

Actually, I don't like the word "illusion," and I rarely use it to designate the nature of our conceptual reality.

I think our conceptual reality is a creation—an abritrary creation.

Every one of us is a unqiue creator, in the image of the ultimate creator. In and through every one of us, the ultimate creator continuously creates an individually unique reality.

God in us; God in you; God with you.

What a terrific analogy inanna.

It not only expresses the purpose of understanding the world in this way, but clarifies that it in no way attempts to deny the existence of "rules of reality."

Beyond that, if I can stretch your analogy a bit, it makes clear the consequences of ignoring the fact that not all drivers obey the rules of the Social Game. There are those who want to get to their destination as fast as possible and who ignore the lights and the potential harm they could cause to any pedestrian who gets in their way. It is therefore in the pedestrian's best interest to educate and enlighten the driver, as well as to acknowledge that we are both at different times.

Arminus quote:

"Actually, I don't like the word "illusion," and I rarely use it to designate the nature of our conceptual reality.

I think our conceptual reality is a creation—an abritrary creation."

This does sit better with me.  I just learned I held the wrong meaning of the word illusion in any case. I was thinking fantasy, make believe, nothing, zero. It means holding a wrong idea or conception so that sheds more light on it for me. I'm allowed  as is the world,cosmos,heavens etc. to exist in some form, not  annihilated.

InannaWhimsey.......Veery good m'dear what you said aboot it. Rather than discussing Buddhism I'd still like to know why you insist on using  "aboot" in all of your writing on the WC !!!!! Dare I risk calling you eccentric? Short reply so we don't disappoint GR in his assessment of this thread  . Your reply is going to be nonsensical. I've asked before! 

Hi stardust:

One more lecture regarding the creative or relative nature of our analyses or conceptualizations:

If we assume the real, objective or ontological reality to be an inseparable whole in a state of synthesis, then synthesis is THE ultimate Truth, and any analysis thereof constitutes an arbitrary fragmentation of the ultimate Truth.

Any analysis—though analytically true when undertaken according to the principles of logic—constitutes a fragmentation of THE ultimate Truth. Moreover, this fragmentation is based on the viewpoint of the observer, which is arbitrarily chosen by the observer. Even the most basic scientfic observation has at least two possible viewpoints and truths: particle or wave. Something as complex has the human experience has an almost infinite number of possible viewpoints and truths, every one of them arbitrarily chosen by the observer. This renders our analyses relative to the viewpoint of the observer.

There are two diametrically opposed truths: synthesis and analysis. Synthesis is absolutely and ultimately True, analysis is relatively true—relative to the viewpoint of the observer, which is arbitrarily chosen by the observer.

Synthetical, holistic, unitive or nondualistic Truth is absolutely True; analytical truth is relatively true—relative to the viewpoint of the observer, which is arbitrarily chosen by the observer. What makes the relative truth of analysis even more relative is that every one of us is a unique individual, experiencing reality uniquely. Thus, every one of us lives in their uniquely own reality and interprets it uniquely. It could be said that everyone lives in their uniquely own conceptual universe, and that there are as many conceptual universes as there are people.

This uniqueness renders us desperately alone, but our great solace lies in the utter unity and oneness which is the ultimate state of being. When we immerse ourselves in that oneness, then we are overcome by unitive love and all the other unitive feelings that keep the universe together simply because it is together.

Our knowledge is fragmentary, and our prophecies are fragmentations. But when that which is perfect has come, then the fragmentation will end.

1 Cor 13:9-10 (Luther Version)

Why have we been "taught" that?  Not directly, I don't think.  It is like the whole Nature vs. Nurture argument -- each of them doesn't exist like a sun, emitting energy by themselves, but they are interrelated (sheesh, for the number of times WC has used this word, the person with the copyright must be getting a HOOOGE royalty cheque).  So, as I pointed out in another thread of yours, we seem to have hard-wired into us certain "programs" or "circuits" that guide us in our behaviors.  And we have "built" our societies, our culture, etc, being influenced by those "programs" or "circuits".  And it can go the other way as well, using such things as meditation and drugs to 'reprogram' these "circuits".

And I don't really know what the limits to human cognition are -- perhaps someone could switch BS really quickly.

(but, I think, as part of the teachings of these, should be these "hard-wired" reactions of ours, and when to rely on them and so forth -- as an instance of this, I remember reading an article that was looking at some Buddhist monks meditating and they found out amazing things, like they were able to STOP an automatic nervous reaction.  This took, I am sure, years of contemplation)

If I can experience these multiple views, then anyone can.  I realize it isn't just a matter of "hey you, stop being a fool and THINK!"  One has to be taught, and with care.  I think we are well on our way to a global society where none of us will have to worry aboot struggling to survive.  Which will require, I think, a big change (not to mention in economics -- I still think the best way to deal with that is to automate it as much as possible, thereby freeing us to do what we are wont to do).

Thank you.  I was trying to think of a good analogy to the term Social Game, and I thought of the road outside my place.

That stretched analogy works, as well.  It fits in with your Golden Rule, as well.

You can't deny it, stardust.  You will forever and ever be eccentric, contrary to how the forces of Greyface would like you to conform.

(It is part of our Canadian patriotism to laugh and mock ourselves)

There is the industrious Sun, but I think Pluto has more fun, playing with comets and the hidden nature of space.

To *Dust:

Yes!  To your apprecation of Stardust's eclectisim...

(really like the name...at some futrue time I might copy it ---but will change the "d" for another "r"" ---)

I was watching a travelog on Madagasgar, where religions ALL get along -- with the motto

"Nothing is true, all is permitted" (Hippys, as I recall say the same but hardly with the same meaning)

I've been too lazy to do it, but I  did want to say "I agree" with yer past 3,600 posts. One of these days, I'll find something to argue with you about...

**clinking screen with wine-filled glass**

Cheers!