Hyperion

One of the most widely misunderstood terms in all of spirituality is the Buddhist notion of "shunyata", which is commonly translated as or at least closely associated with words like emptiness, voidness, groundlessness, nothingness and no-self (which is also known as "anatta"). It is often (mis)interpreted as a kind of nihilistic denial of any inherent substance or meaning of reality; but once you become directly conscious of what it actually points to, you realize that it simply means the following: There is no particular way that reality is. Shunyata points to the fact that there is no such thing as a specific definable ultimate truth that can be fully cognized, conceptualized and communicated through language; it therefore implies that all definitions (aka. conceptual limitations) of reality are nothing but relative perspectives which are partially true at best and downright delusional at worst. Simply put: Whatever you say about reality isn't it - and also it is, but so is the opposite of whatever you are saying. (Of course, the irony here is that the statement "all perspectives are relative" is itself a relative perspective; this is why Nagarjuna, the famous founder of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy, pointed out that "even emptiness itself is empty" and therefore cannot be absolutized.) So while shunyata should not be mistaken for an affirmation of existential nihilism (which erroneously tries to attach absolute meaning and validity to the relative concept of meaninglessness), it certainly refutes the notion of a concrete ground or essence of reality that you somehow safely "land on" upon enlightenment. Assuming the existence of such a specific definable essence is in fact a rather clear-cut logical fallacy, since it assumes the existence of something which is both absolute and definable. The simple fact of the matter is that the absolute (= undefinable) essence or nature of reality cannot be different from (all of) reality itself, as should be obvious to anyone who is capable of and genuinely open to coherent (meta)logical reasoning. (Note: When you say that Being is the essence of reality, then that is NOT a definition. Being does not and cannot have an opposite since it is all that there is, meaning that it must include and transcend all possible opposites such as form/formlessness, time/timelessness, oneness/multiplicity, nothing/everything etc. Being is therefore synonymous with the totality of reality. Again, this is not so much an arbitrary opinion as it is a patently self-evident and tautological assessment based on very simple and obvious logic, and I would sincerely invite anyone who somehow feels compelled to argue against it to question their own underlying motives for doing so.) Of course, the inherently attachment-based ego mind doesn't like to hear any of this. It craves and demands ideological safety, reliability and stability, or in other words: a solid, unshakeable ground that it can build a strong and rigid identity on and thereby keep itself stuck in the treacherous comfort of delusion. And so it will compulsively attack, deflect, distort and/or deny anything that threatens to pull out the rug from under its feet and try at all cost to maintain its dogmatic conviction that "reality is XYZ" and definitely not "not XYZ". You will almost certainly see this play itself out in the replies to this post; there will be plenty of people trying to convince me as well as themselves that I am (absolutely) wrong and they are (absolutely) right and argue until they are blue in the face for the validity of relative positions such as "I am a person", "I am not a person", "I am God", "I am not God", "I exist", "I don't exist", "there is a doer", "there is no doer", "all is one", "all is not one", "there are other minds", "there are no other minds", "reality is physical", "reality is a dream", "reality is logical", "reality is not logical" or whatever other perspectives/beliefs they have built their identity on. Now, am I saying that I myself am totally free of this kind of argumentative pigheadedness? No, of course not. I assure you that I can be just as gleefully opinionated as the next guy; denying any such tendencies on my part would be just another dogmatic assertion and expression of deep egoic delusion. Besides, as long as reality is being observed and experienced from a certain first-person perspective, there is never going to be a 100% complete absence of attachment to that perspective, however faint and imperceptible it may be. But once this perspective is clearly "seen through" and recognized for what it actually is, there is now an opening where the gradual transcendence of all rigid ego identity becomes possible; where all relative perspectives are perceived as different sides of the same all-encompassing coin; where energetic contractions begin to soften, expand and dissolve, and where you start to taste the indescribable boundless bliss and freedom of tapping into and merging with the ineffable Divine, which is All That Is. But of course, that's just my perspective. 😘

There you go... that would be one possible way of formulating an opposite perspective. But regardless of how you formulate them, any verbal statement you make is an expression of a specific perspective that has an opposite and therefore is relativey (un)true. Including of course what I just said.

Again, what would be the opposite of this statement/perspective?

What would be the opposite of this statement/perspective?

@Willy Phallicus Nice. Now reverse the roles and apply everything you are saying about yourself to me and vice versa, and voila... all of your wonderfulky pointless questions are magically answered! I thoroughly enjoyed our stimulating conversation, Mr. Biggus Dickus. <3 😘

And what precisely is the point of pointing out that you don't see the point of me pointing out that trying to point out what cannot be pointed out with words is pointless? I sure do. And I sincerely hope that you got a good ol' kick out of pointlessly commenting on my pointless comment, my fellow chief mate. ⚓

Are you denying that someone was/is in denial of that or something?

@VeganAwake In the words of a great late 20st century American philosopher:

Exactly. The [absolute] whole is greater than the sum of its [relative] parts. (Relatively speaking, of course.)

Good question. I'll assume and say that this is relatively (un)true. Mu.

Relatively speaking: Yes.

Dang, I just had to double-check in order to make sure that this wasn't a post that I had written myself. ...or was it?

That's relatively (un)true. I will, relatively speaking. 😘

To anyone following along who still doesn't get it: The whole point of this thread is to point out the inherent limitations of language (and of the definitions/perspectives that are being expressed through it). If you cannot grasp this on a meta-level which transcends language and its lnherent limitations, then I simply cannot help you. Namaste, bitches.

Yes I agree, what you are saying here is relatively (un)true. 🙃

Yes, this is relatively (un)true. Sure, that is relatively (un)true. No, it is relatively (un)true.

In my conversations with spiritual seekers (as well as those who claim to have stopped seeking), it has become increasingly clear to me that one of the main things that trips people up on the spiritual path is the all too common inability to distinguish between paradox and contradiction. The difference between paradox and contradiction is often quite subtle (and therefore easy to miss) but nevertheless important, since being able to tell the difference between the two essentially equates to being able to distinguish mature spiritual insight from half-baked baloney. Once you have truly internalized it, the ability to tell them apart becomes a rather effective BS-detector that will save you considerable amounts of time, doubt and confusion and show you where you may (still) be attached to certain one-sided views / beliefs and stuck in delusion... so, proceed to read at your own risk, and don't say I didn't warn you. From Wikipedia: A paradox [...] is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true or apparently true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion. A paradox usually involves contradictory-yet-interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time. They result in "persistent contradiction between interdependent elements" leading to a lasting "unity of opposites". In other words: A paradox is a statement or (meta)perspective which implies that two opposite aspects of a thing are equally (in)valid. The statement "less is more" is paradoxical because it equates two opposite qualities which seem to be mutually exclusive; the statement "this statement is false" is paradoxical because it leads to the inevitable conclusion that the statement itself is simultaneously true AND false - and also, it is neither. Here is why this is important: Reality is fundamentally paradoxical. Anything that can be expressed with words is always and without exception a relative perspective; and for any one relative perspective, there is always an opposite and complementary counter-perspective which, from an absolute standpoint, is equally valid - or invalid, depending on how you look at it. (Before you accuse me of reckless relativism, let me point out that the statement "all perspectives are equally (in)valid" is itself a relative perspective and therefore cannot be absolutized. You're welcome.) Paradoxical statements therefore point to a higher order of truth where seeming opposites are seen and recognized as two sides of the same coin that complement and imply each other; they are seen to be different (relative) aspects of the same (absolute) thing/no-thing/everything. Examples of such statements are: "Reality is dual AND nondual", "I am a person AND I am not a person", "appearance is real AND illusory", "time exists AND doesn't exist", "there are other people AND there are no other people". (Again: You may agree or disagree that the opposite perspective in each of these examples is equally valid as its counterpart, but the fact of the matter is that they complement and imply each other by their very existence; one perspective simply cannot exist without the other, just as there cannot be high without low, light without dark, positive without negative etc.) So, how is a contradiction different from a paradox? A contradiction is when you assume and express a one-sided perspective (that essentially denies and invalidates the complementary opposite perspective); and then, you express a second (relatively unrelated) one-sided perspective that invalidates the first one. So instead of acknowledging two opposite sides of the one coin, you acknowledge only one side and then say something else which contradicts that. Examples: "Reality is nondual AND cannot be labeled or described", "all is one AND all is nothing", "there is appearance AND there is no duality", "there is no time AND everything is impermanent", "you are God AND you don't exist", "there are no others AND most people are lost in the dream", "there is nothing but awakeness AND there is noone to awaken" --- the classic (Neo) Advaita contradictions. Again: The difference between paradox and contradiction can be very subtle and easy to miss; but with enough practice (and insight), it will become more and more easy for you to immediately and intuitively tell them apart. So keep sharpening your sword, fellow Samurai, until you can cut right through the drivel. Tl;dr: A paradox is a trans-logical metaperspective that points to a higher truth; a contradiction is an illogical fallacy that indicates attachment to an inconsistent belief system. Having said all that, please feel free to contradict what I just wrote.

@Ziran I (dis)agree with everything you said. 😘

That's relatively (un)true. The opposite of the statement: "In total, All of reality includes truth, fiction, and the inconceivable" ...is the statement: "In total, All of reality does not include truth, fiction, and the inconceivable." Both of them are expressions of (relative) perspectives that exist in and as part of (absolute) truth/reality (which has no opposite because it is all there is). Therefore, both are relatively true/real. Q.E.D., motherf***er.

Of course it is true, relatively speaking. Which means that it's also untrue, relatively speaking.

Relatively speaking, yes. Which means that relatively speaking, it is also true. Hence: Fascinating, huh?

That's relatively (un)true. That's relatively (un)true. That's relatively (un)true. That's relatively (un)true. That's relatively (un)true. That's relatively (un)true. That's relatively (un)true. That's relatively (un)true.

For an even deeper exploration of the dichotomy between relative truth vs. absolute truth, check out this video: And in case you're curious and interested in hearing more about Nagarjuna's (anti-)philosophy, this video right here does a beautiful job of breaking it down in an easily digestable way:

Superb deduction, Sherlok. 👏 When talking about All That Is, we have to refer to it by a certain word... because, y'know, that's how language works. But of course, words like Reality, the Absolute, Infinity etc. are nothing but placeholder terms, if you will; that which they refer to cannot be defined and thus cannot be captured by any one word, because words usually refer to definable and therefore relative things (which by definition always have opposites). So to sum it up in easily digestable terms, here is how taking about reality works: There are things that have opposites (‐> relative parts or aspects of reality), and then there is that which doesn't have an opposite (-> the totality of reality). When using language, you have to pick certain words (like aspect/perspective/quality) to refer to the former and certain other words (like Reality/Totality/Infinity) to refer to the latter. So when I speak of "the infinite field of all possible qualities", then I am simply referring to that which has no opposite which encompasses or contains all possible opposites... which just doesn't sound quite as catchy, if you ask me. Elementary, isn't it?

The following is my attempt to formulate a "theory of everything" that is as short and concise as possible and doesn't contain any kind of unnecessary fluff. I hope you have fun with it... and please keep in mind that this is only a conceptual model which, just like any model, is nothing but a necessarily incomplete and ultimately inadequate abstraction. Enjoy. --- The Absolute is the totality of Being. It has no specific quality, as it is the origin, the sum, and the essence - or field - of all possible qualities. Therefore, the Absolute cannot be directly experienced; an experience is always the experience of something definable, i.e. of something that possesses a concrete quality. In other words: Reality is only ever partially perceivable, experienceable and cognizable, but never as a complete whole. Consciousness or experience of reality is therefore only possible where the Absolute seemingly splits up into several parts and establishes contrasting relations between them; it is the contrast between these different parts (or states) that gives them their specific qualities and thus makes them experienceable. Relativity is thus a necessary condition of existence: No relations -> no contrast -> no qualities -> no experience / cognition of reality. In order to perceive itself, the consciousness of the whole, which can only ever be experientially aware of specific parts or aspects of itself, must constantly alternate between contrasting qualitative states; therefore, no state can ever be permanent. However, a state can appear more or less permanent if the speed or vibrational frequency with which consciousness shifts between contrasting states is accordingly low (-> one-sided fixation, relative stagnation, seeming incompleteness / fragmentation, suffering). But the higher the frequency, the more consciousness approaches a holistic experience of total reality where contrasting qualitative states seem to be experienced simultaneously (-> unification and integration of all opposites, 'spiritual awakening", "enlightenment"). This is the essence of all spirituality. --- Due to popular request, here is a more easy-to-understand analogy (which I originally posted below) that illustrates what I am talking about in the text above: This is the famous Yin Yang symbol, which I am sure you are familiar with. Now, here's a question for you: Is this symbol white, or is it black? It's obviously both, right? So the symbol possesses / represents not only one specific quality, but two: Whiteness and blackness. Now imagine a thing which has not only two qualities but literally every single quality that there could possibly be, including the quality of not having any quality whatsoever. This "thing" - which is no-thing as well as everything - is the Absolute aka. All of Reality. This no-thing / everything cannot be experienced directly, since it is impossible to experience every possible quality that there is all at once. So what does it do in order to be able to experience itself? It splits itself up into infinite parts, each of which represents and embodies a specific quality (just as Yin represents blackness and Yang represents whiteness), and then it lines them all up in space and time so that it can experience them one by one. Now, when it moves its awareness very slowly from part to part (so to speak), then each quality that is being experienced in the moment is being experienced for a pretty long time; and the longer it takes for a certain quality (or part of reality) to be experienced, the more dense, solid, sticky and permanent it seems... even though no experience can ever be permanent (since an experience can only exist in contrast to another experience, just as Yin can only exist in contrast to Yang.) Now, go back and take another look at the Yin Yang symbol. Imagine that you could never see (experience) the whole symbol all at once, but only one part at a time. Imagine that there is a switch in front of you that you can flip either to the left or to the right; and depending on which side you flip the switch, you see either the Yin part (black) or the Yang part (white) appearing on the screen. (Remember: You can never see them both at the same time.) - So, the only way for you to get an idea of what it would be like to see the full symbol all at once is to flip the switch back and forth as fast as possible; and the faster you flip it back and forth, the more it will seem like you are looking at the whole symbol (while at the same time the two contrasting parts will seem less and less dense and solid.) This is basically what spirituality is about. It's about learning to flip the switch as fast as possible (by whatever means necessary) in order to "perceive the Absolute" - which you never fully do, but you can get closer and closer and closer and closer to it... unto infinity. Because that's literally what the Absolute is: Infinity aka. All there is. Hope that helps.