Hyperion

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?

Reality is the infinite field of all possible qualities, meaning that anything you can name, think of and experience is it - and also, it isn't. So it doesn't make the slightest difference what you call it: Reality, unreality, consciousness, spirit, matter, appearance, illusion, everything, nothing, self, no-self, oneness, multiplicity, Yin, Yang, John, Jaqueline, a three-headed Zebra with purple stripes... the name you give it doesn't matter at all, because it is All That Is, and it includes, expresses itself as and transcends absolutely everything.

Mmmm, another well-founded and carefully substantiated criticism. What a delight! Consciousness is the by-product of relative qualities coming into existence (and thereby being experienced). In fact, consciousness, experience, existence and relativity are pretty much synonymous. You can only ever experience that which "stands out" in your awareness from the rest of reality. The totality of reality on the other hand can never be (fully) experienced; it can only be experienced and be made conscious by approximation, if you will (I.e. by raising the vibrational frequency of consciousness). But hey, it seems to me like I already explained all of this at length in my OP, so... why exactly am I writing all of this again?

The opposite of that which can be expressed with words is that which cannot be expressed with words. The opposite of that which can be described as "XYZ" is that which can be described as "not XYZ". That which has no opposite must be all of those things, and also none of those things. Simple logic.

This is going to be my last reply to you on this thread. The Absolute is that which has no opposite. Therefore, whatever you say about it (i.e. whatever relative quality you adscribe to it) isn't it - and also it is, but so is the opposite of whatever you say about it. If you cannot grasp this simple meta-logical fact, then I simply cannot help you. Over and out.

First of all, nonduality is a relative quality/perspective, not Absolute Truth (which includes and transcends both duality and nonduality). Secondly, relative opposites never dissappear. They just become integrated, and thereby transcended. That's the beauty of Reality. It accommodates and allows absolutely everything, because it is absolutely everything. ☯️

Sorry, but for someone who raves so much about logic, you just don't seem very capable of (meta)logical thinking. Also, you seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder. So I frankly don't really see the point in talking to you. Take care, brother.