Paradox vs Contradiction

[Hyperion]

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. 

 

Edited August 2 by Hyperion

[Hojo]

Paradox the table is wet cause it was dry

Contradiction the table is wet when its dry.

[Hyperion]

@Hojo

Paradox: Your comment is both smart AND stupid.

Contradiction: I am rolling my eyes AND I don't give a hoot.

[Hyperion]

I feel like this thread deserves a

😌

[Hyperion]

Trust me... once you really get this, you will laugh out loud at any mention of dogmatic & incoherent Advaita nonsense and wonder how you could ever take it seriously.

It's actually hilarious once you see it for what it is. 

 

Edited August 12 by Hyperion

[Breakingthewall]

There are no paradoxes, only superficial understanding. Existence is absolutely logical, since its substance is relation, and there is no relation alogic, since logic is relation. You may not understand that logic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Hyperion]

@Breakingthewall

On 31.7.2025 at 8:41 PM, Hyperion said:

.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.

That which is translogical incorporates logic and transcends it; that which is illogical denies logic and therefore doesn'thold water, no matter how you slice it.

Don't fall for the pre/trans fallacy. It's not a pretty place to dwell in.

[Breakingthewall]

22 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

@Breakingthewall

That which is translogical incorporates logic and transcends it; that which is illogical denies logic and therefore doesn'thold water, no matter how you slice it.

Don't fall for the pre/trans fallacy. It's not a pretty place to dwell in.

For example, what is trans logical?

[Breakingthewall]

 There is only one apparent paradox: the absolute is the absence of limits. Therefore, it has no absolute limits, only relative ones. This might seem like an absolute limit in itself, but it is not ,because the nature of the absolute is not defined by an edge or a boundary. Its limitlessness is not a restriction; it is simply what it is. It's not a real paradox, just a missinterpretation of what a limit is. 

Edited August 12 by Breakingthewall

[Hyperion]

On 12.8.2025 at 9:24 PM, Breakingthewall said:

For example, what is trans logical?

Read the OP. It's all in there.

[Breakingthewall]

9 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

Read the OP. It's all in there.

I answered the two examples that you put. This affirmation is false and less is more. Both are just aplay on words, not a real paradox. The only real paradox is the one I posted above. I understand that you might be lazy to read it, but if you later find the energy, go for it!

[Jirh]

On 7/31/2025 at 9:41 PM, Hyperion said:

(Before you accuse me of reckless relativism, let me point out that the statement "all perspectives are equally (in)valid" is itself (and is not) a relative perspective and therefore (can and) cannot be absolutized. You're welcome.)

[Jirh]

On 12/08/2025 at 8:55 PM, Breakingthewall said:

There are no paradoxes, only superficial understanding. Existence is absolutely logical, since its substance is relation, and there is no relation alogic, since logic is relation. You may not understand that logic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How is it logical that life is created from death and that death is created from life?!

How is "temperature" logical? Hot and cold both coexist simultaneously, or don't exist at all.

How is it logical or relational that logic and relation exist at all?!

Edited August 15 by Jirh

[Breakingthewall]

18 minutes ago, Jirh said:

How is it logical that life is created from death and that death is created from life?!

How is "temperature" logical? Hot and cold both coexist simultaneously, or don't exist at all.

How is it logical or relational that logic and relation exist at all?!

 

It may not seem logical to you because, as humans, our perspective is limited to a narrow slice of cause-and-effect relationships. We see only fragments of the infinite network of relational structures that interlock and build upon one another. But every form, every state, every transformation is logical within the framework that sustains it. What appears “illogical” is simply logic operating from a structure or perspective we cannot fully grasp. Even phenomena like two subatomic particles being in two places at the same time follow the internal logic of quantum reality. Logic is not a human invention; it is the inevitable coherence of relationships, whatever their scale or expression. Relationship are coherent, because if not they collapse, everything is synchronic without deviation. Even the chaos and destruction are synchrony form a wider perspective 

 

[Jirh]

24 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 

It may not seem logical to you because, as humans, our perspective is limited to a narrow slice of cause-and-effect relationships. We see only fragments of the infinite network of relational structures that interlock and build upon one another. But every form, every state, every transformation is logical within the framework that sustains it. What appears “illogical” is simply logic operating from a structure or perspective we cannot fully grasp.

That would imply a material world with absolute rules. In other words, life is not a dream.

But how do you know? Especially that you seem to be suggesting a leap of faith in some kind of superior logic that nobody understands. It just seems suspicious.

24 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Even phenomena like two subatomic particles being in two places at the same time follow the internal logic of quantum reality. Logic is not a human invention; it is the inevitable coherence of relationships, whatever their scale or expression.

Actually, quantum mechanics (which is subfield of physics; another human invention) is a human invention. In reality, there are not even molecules or atoms or strings or anything like that. They're all just theories and models that help us explain how reality works, not what it actually is.

24 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Relationship are coherent, because if not they collapse, everything is synchronic without deviation. Even the chaos and destruction are synchrony form a wider perspective 

Dreams rarely follow a coherent or consistent logic. They're usually very chaotic and the rules get created and destroyed on the fly. It would be improper to even call them "rules".

[Breakingthewall]

29 minutes ago, Jirh said:

But how do you know? Especially that you seem to be suggesting a leap of faith in some kind of superior logic that nobody understands. It

Because any relationship inherently contains its own logic; there is no superior logic standing above it. To relate is to follow a structure of coherence that emerges from the relationship itself. Anything that happens is change; any change is contrast. That contrast generates its own internal logic, inseparable from the relation that produces it.

[UnbornTao]

What's a paradox?

An absolute is always paradoxical - it must contain all possibilities. It is nothing, everything, and infinite at the same time. And understanding that, I'd say, isn't a function of rationality or intellect, not even of mind or perception. How could it be? It is, in fact, both incomprehensible and inconceivable - and yet also graspable. The story goes that it requires a so-called "direct consciousness."

That's regarding the absolute truth - whatever it is. I'm not sure about the more conventional meaning.

Edited August 15 by UnbornTao

[Hyperion]

16 hours ago, Jirh said:

(Before you accuse me of reckless relativism, let me point out that the statement "all perspectives are equally (in)valid" is itself (and is not) a relative perspective and therefore (can and) cannot be absolutized. You're welcome.) 

 

 

[Hyperion]

14 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

An absolute is always paradoxical - it must contain all possibilities. It is nothing, everything, and infinite at the same time.

...which is why it has been said:

 

Tao called Tao is not Tao.

Names can name no lasting name.

Nameless: the origin of heaven and earth.

Naming: the mother of ten thousand things.

Empty of desire, perceive mystery. Filled with desire, perceive manifestations.

These have the same source, but different names.

Call them both deep - Deep and again deep:

The gateway to all mystery.

 

14 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

And understanding that, I'd say, isn't a function of rationality or intellect, not even of mind or perception. How could it be? It is, in fact, both incomprehensible and inconceivable - and yet also graspable. The story goes that it requires a so-called "direct consciousness."

I would say that it is a function of high-frequency multi-perspectival meta-awareness that leads to a unification and integration of opposites.

Which, for the purpose of brevity and catchiness, is more commonly referred as "enlightenment".

 

[Breakingthewall]

18 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

Names can name no lasting name.

Nameless: the origin of heaven and earth.

Naming: the mother of ten thousand things.

Empty of desire, perceive mystery. Filled with desire, perceive manifestations.

These have the same source, but different names.

Call them both deep - Deep and again deep:

The gateway to all mystery.

There is no mystery, it's just absence of limitations. It's inevitable, and absolutely logical. If there are not limits, how could the tao not be? It's impossible. The tao is everything, and you are that.