You are hereForums / Spiritual Tradition, Scriptures and Religion / Living the Paradox

Living the Paradox


13 replies [Last post]
User offline. Last seen 4 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts:

Apparently in quantum physics a certain ´thing´ can (in one and the same place and time) exist ánd not exist! This strikes me as quite a good metaphor for how I view ´the stuff´ we are dealing with in our search for truth.

Some time ago I read in a magazine a nice answer to a question in regard to the weird realities of modern physics. The journalist asked something like: ´Do you actually understand what you are dealing with here?´
The professor answered: ´Well understanding...it´s not really understanding, it´s more like you get used to it somehow.´

Not understanding, but getting used to it. The words of a hard-scientist. How refreshing.

The most interesting thing when I look at the words of teachers is the paradoxical nature of them ,which to me seems very appropriate since we are talking about Reality, just like physics.

I think really seeing/feeling the paradoxes can be a gateway to Reality.

Krishnamurti: ¨Truth has no tradition, it cannot be handed down.¨ (true!)

Osho: ¨ Krishnamurti is right when he says no Master is needed. Yes, one day you will also know that no Master is needed, but you will know only when somebody has awakened you or you have become awakened in somebody's presence. Then you will know, you will say 'Krishnamurti is right.' But if you listen to Krishnamurti right now and believe that no Master is needed, you will never come to know that Krishnamurti is right. You will remain unawakened.¨ (true also!)

Again Osho: ¨Krishnamurti has his way, and I am happy that he is in the world. He is at the other extreme. If he is gone, I will miss him more than anybody else in the world. But I can understand your question, Henk Faassen. This is not the only question; you have asked many more about the same thing. It seems it has hurt you deeply that I criticized Krishnamurti. You don't understand me yet. This is my way of paying respects to him. This is my way of declaring that there exists another enlightened person in the world.¨ (Nice!)

Paraphrasing Ramana: ¨To attain enlightenment you´ll need the intensity of a drowning man fighting for air.¨ (true)

Papaji: ¨Call off the search!.¨ (true)

But also the teachers contradict themselves. Because I can also remember that Ramana apparently said that enlightenment was the most simple thing.

When the zen-master Hui Neng was dying he allegedly said to his students (future teachers) something like: if someone makes a positive statement, you answer with a negative statement. And if someone makes a negative statement, you answer with a positive statement. (hardcore zen, haha)

´Form is emptiness. And emptiness is form´
The past two weeks I´ve been revisiting this enigmatic paradox. It came to me that people in the seeker realm (at least I did) will probably find it not so hard to integrate the first part of this paradox: form is emptiness. In essence there are no things (not even awareness, since that also is dependent on other things that don´t exist. Awareness may be the ultimate concept, but still it´s a concept like a cup or a thought...) Everything flows and even the ´flowing´ is a form that in it´s essence is empty (it does not exist.) The Buddha even spoke of the emptiness of emptiness.
But it is very essential to not forget the second (to me more mysterious) part of the paradox, which completes it: emptiness is form. So while there are no things, and even emptiness is a thing which in itself is empty, there still is the matter that emptiness is full of potential. For we could say that there is nothing, but this still is the opposite of something or everything, which is in the realm of duality. So emptiness is beyond the dual idea of nothing. It is totally Free potential (even free of freedom) that has no problem with contradicting itself. SO IT´S FORM AND NO FORM AT THE SAME TIME. It´s a pulsating paradox!

I think the result of looking only at the first ´form is emptiness part´ can for example lead to the typical buddhist monk who smiles all day, says very wise things - but with whom you don´t feel really safe. Something is missing. A certain true enjoyment that goes deeper than that superficial smile.
Everyone who is really honest feels it, but it´s hard to describe. I wonder whether it has to do with living the full paradox. So also the juicy part where emptiness is form.
Both at the same time.
The flux pulsating...

Reality has no problem with a paradox. Living the Paradox...is a kiss.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
User offline. Last seen 6 years 36 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Actualism

Has anybody on this forum ever read about Actualism?

"Actualism" was so named by its inventor a man called Richard who lives in Australia. Richard spent 11 years enlightened and then realised that there was another state which casts the whole of enlightenment, God-men, gurus, masters, spiritual teachers etc in an extraordinarily bad light ie that there is a grand delusion going on thanks to our genetic software.

I would love to get some intelligent feedback on this. You can google "actualism the wide and wondrous path to..."

User offline. Last seen 5 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 09/12/2011
Posts:
Actualism

Actualism is ZEN. . . what is actual. . . what is here NOW. . . :)

Samnoelpearce

txabier7's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/10/2011
Posts:
The lighting and the power of now

I think it's more than Zen, is the power of now manifested in people who are illuminated, as Eckart Tholle

wisdompoint's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 years 36 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/03/2010
Posts:
Thanks

Love it. This is truly interesting. It is TANTRA. The point is: no difference. Until then, integration....

User offline. Last seen 2 years 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Living the Paradox

Regarding Emptiness is Form, Arjen, I see it in this way:
It is not only about Potential, rather it is actually Emptiness manifesting itself as Form. It is the One becomming the Many, the Path of Emptiness on Its way out of Its Empty Ground of Being.

The opposit, i.e. Form is Emptiness, is the Form (the Many) that sees its Emptiness and that is longing to be One again, its path back to the One.

But both are the same Empty Ground dealing with Itself.

The "movement" of the first one is sometimes called Compassion, the second one is called Wisdom, but they are One.
This is theory of course, but it helps me to assimilate this "Paradox" so that it becomes easier to try to live it with wisdom and compassion (i.e. in Nonduality).
Personally I feel it easier too to see Emptiness in Form and actually I feel easier to realize wisdom. Compassion is much more difficult to apply in practice, so that`s the challenge!

User offline. Last seen 4 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts:
-

I think I agree with what you wrote. I like the image of the One becoming Many and the the Many becoming One, at the same time.

On the word ´potential.´ It´s somewhat a vague term. Perhaps we both have different images in our head when we hear that word. I think I wanted to underline that emptiness is not the same as nothingness. And therefore chose that word.

While I was doing the dishes (the [re]search never stops, haha) I thought about you mentioning the word ´compassion.´ It made me think about the fact that in Buddhism they talk a lot about the nature of compassion and so on. And it came to me that the reason for this could very well be that in the spiritual realm there is this fear for attachment. And therefore there is this tendency to apply the ´emptiness is form´ part from a detached point of view (wisdom) by talking about it but not by really living it.

I see it like this: ´form is emptiness´ is detachment, and ´emptiness is form´ is attachment.
Either choosing for one or the other leads to suffering.
And as I was wondering about this the idea popped in my head that the ´solution´ is dying and being born at the same. Dying is detachment, being born is attachment.
And in this I don´t separate compassion from enjoyment or seeing the sensuality of everyday live.

User offline. Last seen 2 years 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Living the Paradox

Yes, I understand what you mean and it is very interesting.Specially what you said about dying and being born.It fits quite well to my life, since I always find detachment easier than attachment, easier to learn to die than to learn to live and enjoy.
I am thinking about Tantra. I don`t know much about it, but in Tantra there is the princip to learn practically to integrate these two energies, the masculine (wisdom) with the feminine (compassion).
About the fear of attachment in spirituality I totally agree.It has followed and persecuted us under all our modern and post-modern era, I am a victim of this fear myself and it is a great hindrance to live in harmony, to integrate Form (the Born) and Emptiness (the Unborn One).

User offline. Last seen 4 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts:
-

Isn´t it cool that two seekers can freely use dualistic terms like detachment and attachment for example, without having the idea that it´s useless? I find it very positive to feel this freedom more and more.

About attachment.
I find that when it becomes easier to enjoy something in freedom (a sensory thing for example like a cup of afternoon coffee) and so to give birth to the experience (from which I´m not separated), it also becomes easier to let it go (dying.) Because the letting go somehow makes the birth of the experience more intense. And then it´s a sort of flux.
I´m not talking about any mind shattering experience or anything, but ´just´ enjoying a moment in daily life.
But still, enjoying the moment on more than just these few occasions indeed remains a challenge. And of course it shouldn´t become a goal in itself, becomes then your stuck in either attachment or detachment (depending on the strategy.)

And now I just mentioned the positive side of things.
For example. I heard, that this morning in the town where I live a young woman died in a fire. And it came to me, if I walk the ´natural path´ this tragedy also has to be included. It´s a nice start to savor a cup of coffee, but ultimately all is connected, and excluding the dark side is a perversion, a tightening up that leads to unnecessary suffering.
As I think about it, I expect that sad events can be digested in a healthier (perhaps more beautiful) way if they are fully seen. To be born and to die at the same time.

User offline. Last seen 2 years 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Living the Paradox

Yes, it`s really fine that we can discuss freely and express our thoughts. Besides, I think we must be careful about this Nondual "fundamentalism". Some people think that if we embrace the nondual way of living, we shouldn`t speak anymore with each other or that we don`t need to think anymore.But the brain is still working, isn`t it? And life is still going on.
Your last replay was profound and I had to read it more times and go back to mine to put them together.
So it would mean that enjoying with detachment is the way to keep the balance and live in harmony.Yes, it has to be in that way.
And of course we can`t enjoy the suffering in life, rather we must integrate it in seeing it.Or maybe we should say that we can suffer with the same detachment that we enjoy pleasure.
But now the term "attachment" starts getting a more negative tone.
What do you think? I must get more thinking about this topic! And I understand it is a very important one!

User offline. Last seen 2 years 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Living the Paradox

There was something wrong in my understanding of your definition of attachment, being the way of Emptiness into Form.
Actually I see more the movement of Creation, the Divine comming into Form and yes, we could understand the Divine being in love with its Creation as a joy or attachment. Maybe you ment it in that way.
In the Nondual experience Emptiness and Form are One.The confusion arises when we think that Form should disappear being an illusion of the mind.
I`m not clear about that...

User offline. Last seen 4 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts:
-

I´m not sure if I understand you fully so correct me if I´m wrong.
Looking at this matter you don´t ´see´ emptiness going into form, but rather the movement of creation going into form. Or perhaps the movement of creation is form. (and form is the movement of creation. And as it´s a movement, it´s empty.)
From a certain perspective I also see movement, but on an absolute perspective I don´t see movement because ´form is emptiness´ and ´emptiness is form´ hold each other in balance.It´s a point-zero without the zero (everything is possible.) It is only when we start speaking about it that we make a separation between the two and then there is apparent movement.

You know what´s funny, that I have to read back some of my own words in order to know my standpoint. Because the thing is that with my coffee example I have a certain, I guess you can call it natural experience, and reflecting on this I call this dying and being born at the same time. So it was an experience turned into a mold of words. So it can very well be that the words are not quite right. But I still think dying and being born at the same is a paradox that sounds quite nice.
And then I labeled dying as ´form is emptiness´ and being born as ´emptiness is form.´ Perhaps the Buddha is now nodding his head: ´he is misusing my paradox!´

quote myself: ¨And in this I don´t separate compassion from enjoyment or seeing the sensuality of everyday live.¨

quote you:
¨And of course we can`t enjoy the suffering in life, rather we must integrate it in seeing it.Or maybe we should say that we can suffer with the same detachment that we enjoy pleasure.
But now the term "attachment" starts getting a more negative tone.¨

Thinking about this I wonder whether it isn´t more appropriate to talk about seeing/experiencing fully (effortless) without holding back. And then realness can arise, which we could call natural. Depending on the experience we can then label it ´enjoyment´ or ´compassion´ etc...
Perhaps seen from the absolute there is always enjoyment, like you write, a being in love with its own creation.
Seen from the personal perspective this is the most challenging bit it seems to me, because everything is welcome in love – everything! Love doesn´t have a problem with torture, but (to give the full picture) also not with the condemning of torture.

A thought: Reality is a paradox. And a paradox is a miracle, since it defies the laws of logic. Yet it has no problem with logic, no problem with anything.

User offline. Last seen 2 years 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
Living the Paradox

Yes, I meant the movement of the Divine, resulting in the Creation, which is Form.
But I conceive living and dying both as two aspects of Form in the ever changing realm of the finite,which of course isn`t separate from its Source.
But I really don`t know...These are concepts, which I inherited from teachers but which still make sense to me.
If I prescind from them what remains? Only pure Emptiness as a feeling and ever changing forms which I experience in my mind.
So it should be enough as you say, to experience effortlessly everything which arises, leaving the logic of the mind to itself.

User offline. Last seen 4 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts:
-

Sunbow, if I understand you correct you don't mean by Actualism the school of philosophy, but rather the model as being brought on this site: http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/default.htm

I indeed don't know it. This site isn't really clear cut, at least from what I see. But do I understand correctly that this is their main idea: "Now, for the first time, a proven method has been devised to eliminate the genetically-encoded instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire, the very passions that are the root cause of human bondage, malice and sorrow." ?

To eliminate them, doesn't sound that healthy to me. I don't see anything wrong with aggression or fear for example. But I haven't spent that much time investigating. So perhaps there's a lot more to it.
(edit: perhaps it's an idea to make a topic about actualism, so you can give the basics and then people can react to it.)

Anna, I don't see anything you write that I disagree with. But I do want to bring in remembrance that ultimately (in my view) dying and being born happen on the same time. So in reality if we would just not use words, there is only the miracle. But since 'the miracle' as an answer doesn't satisfy us (rightly so) we have to investigate and dissect, and the we come up with dying and being born at the same time, for example. Or some other paradox.

Now ofcourse the challenge that lies ahead of me (and others) is that Trying with Effort to experience effertlesly is useless. Ha ha...

There is either effortless experiencing or there is not. and once you experience effortlessly to it's fullest degree then (the teachers tell us) we see that we were experiencing effortlessly all along, even when we were searching. AAAh, paradox! :)

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 

 

My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  

 

Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.

  

 

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.