Guest guest Posted April 4, 1999 Report Share Posted April 4, 1999 A paradox is an apparent contradiction, which may turn out to be a literal truth (or not). An example: if in a philosophic mood and my cat jumps up onto my lap, I might say, "This is not a cat." Why? Everyone knows it's a cat. The point of the paradox is that "cat" just indicates language convention and description, but is not the reality as such. "Cat" indicates self-referential meaning, and begs further description. If nonduality has anything to do with this, it is that, as I see it, there is a way to speak of the world as energy relationships instead of separate identities. That is, the cat on my lap and I are "not two" but rather a single energy or event, interconnected in totality with the universe of energy relations. This relates to Tao. This is no different than Tao. The word "Tao" is not Tao. Phil ... > Tim Harris <harris > > > > Gill Collingwood wrote: > > > To me, there seems to be a strong link between non-duality and > > paradoxes, but I can't quite put it into words; can anyone else > > explain it? > > gill > > > > The concept that you seek is the concept of 'Tao'. Tao is paradox 'and' > nondual. > > Regards. > > Tim Harris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 1999 Report Share Posted April 4, 1999 "Phillip Burton" <p_burton wrote: > Are you familiar with the paradox of the Cretan liar? The Cretan > liar is the one that says that all Cretans are liars. That's not much of a paradox. The guy is lying; only some Cretans are liars. How about: this statement is false? Or the famous: There are threee errers in this sentence. (The third error is that there are only two. But that makes three, so it's not an error, which means that there are two, and so on...) Actually, I think all those types of paradox boil down to 'this statement is false', except some of them (like the Cretan liar one) have a loophole. I'm not sure that they're actually paradoxes, but my lessons in logic didn't go that far... To me, there seems to be a strong link between non-duality and paradoxes, but I can't quite put it into words; can anyone else explain it? gill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 1999 Report Share Posted April 4, 1999 Gill Collingwood wrote: > To me, there seems to be a strong link between non-duality and > paradoxes, but I can't quite put it into words; can anyone else > explain it? > gill > The concept that you seek is the concept of 'Tao'. Tao is paradox 'and' nondual. Regards. Tim Harris -- For more information on the CASUAL ENLIGHTENMENT METHOD please visit: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/4908/index.html ICQ # 34365156 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 1999 Report Share Posted April 4, 1999 Phillip Burton wrote: > > > This relates to Tao. This is no different than Tao. The word "Tao" is not > Tao. > > Phil ... > You got it Phil. Yes. It is a 'concept'. As soon as we give it a postive or negative value based in perception and/or judgement, it is not 'what' (concept) it is, but, none the less, 'it is' (paradox). Yikes... does that make sense? Oh well. It does to me. The process of 'understanding' or 'enlightenment' is to place concepts (words) together in a geometrical form that presents 'apparent' symmetry. There are endless combinations in other words... all things are possible. Regards. Tim Harris -- For more information on the CASUAL ENLIGHTENMENT METHOD please visit: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/4908/index.html ICQ # 34365156 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 1999 Report Share Posted April 4, 1999 Gill Collingwood wrote: <snip> > To me, there seems to be a strong link between non-duality and > paradoxes, but I can't quite put it into words; can anyone else > explain it? > gill Marcia: A paradox, like non-duality, is a coin which has two sides. It is one coin and it does have two sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 1999 Report Share Posted April 4, 1999 "Gill Collingwood" <Gill >[...] > To me, there seems to be a strong link between non-duality and > paradoxes, but I can't quite put it into words; can anyone else > explain it? > gill For C.G. Jung the nondual paradox was, without "ego" one can't experience anything. So he didn't agree with Ramana Maharshi who was uncompromising regarding "ego", contrary to Ramakrishna: "the ego can be a servant". The seeming paradox can be solved by considering that all sensory input is automatically stored; it can be retrieved by hypnosis etc. If this "unconscious recorder" becomes one's "normal" mode of sense perception, it means perception without experiencer. It also explains that no impressions are left behind, confirming the dictum 'without "ego", nothing "sticks"'. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.