I gave a dharma talk last week on Paradox on the Spiritual Path. Paradox is a topic that I’ve been really intrigued by the last few years, and it seemed a fitting topic to explore with our meditation group. After the talk one of the participants asked about certain “opposites” that aren’t paradoxes, such as the cardinal directions of north and south (which interesting can become the basis for a paradox if our identity is tied to where we live, as in the case of the US Civil War). That drove me to think further about the differences between opposites and paradoxes.
What I came to is that not all opposites are paradoxes, but all paradoxes require opposition. A paradox is actually a dynamic tension between opposites. It’s a tension because there is opposition between two (or more) poles, and it’s dynamic because there’s a shifting back and forth between the poles. If it were a static opposition then it wouldn’t be a paradox, because from the point of view of one pole it would appear to be solved—”I am right and they are wrong.”
Furthermore, many opposites are naturally occurring and they provide no problem for us. And the same seems to be true with duality. Dualistic perception, of a subject and object is only a problem when there feels like an opposition between them. For many people it hasn’t even reached the point of becoming paradoxical because it seems so unquestionable. For others that dualism presents a problem, an unsolved contradiction. For those people it is a problem, and it feels a resolution is necessary (and it is). For others, it isn’t a problem. Not because they’ve gotten rid of duality, but because they’ve resolved the paradox at a new level. Dualistic perception continues, but one sees from the “apex” (or the Middle Way) that subject and object are totally interdependent, interconnected, and naturally occurring perceptual perspectives.
As you can see, I’m describing a 3-fold developmental model to explain paradox:
- Stage 1: There is no paradox between opposites, because they aren’t recognized as opposites or because we completely invalidate one side or the other.
- Stage 2: We see there is an opposition within the opposites, and as a result a dynamic tension forms between the poles.
- Stage 3: The paradox is resolved, but at a completely new level and in a way that we couldn’t have predicted (otherwise it wouldn’t be new).
And then this process itself can continue at new levels. I speak more about this in my talk, so check it out if you find this sort of thing interesting.
As far the process being able to “continue at new levels” goes, I’d attempt to add a 4th level (and pose a question), using the familiar two sides of a coin analogy:
1. The face of a coin and the imagery/symbolism on it (conceptually monopolized mind – brutally clear insanity).
2. Heads or tails?! (conflict/suffering- conceptually dualistic (delusional) mind – “the human condition”).
3. The whole coin (both sides and whole coin seen) and useful (currency), a more holistic/balanced concept framework (trinity – spiritual mind – but still a conceptual understanding of manifest/unmanifest seen together [this, that AND both as one comprising the trinity]).
4. The “coin” is now ripples on the pond (complete living unity- “no mind” – non-conceptual reality [and all conceptions that arise within] – now).
At 4, of what use are “levels”? Level 4 is level 0!
Levels are conceptual and so limited to 3,2,& 1 where awareness is still conceptually bound. Saying more about this gets counterproductive fast, as language/communication is conceptual and only in rare moments can it rise above the dualism of level 2 – (which includes my crude attempt to convey #4/0).
Mind is always dualistic, and we must communicate through it. This is not a problem to solve, just the nature of mind.
In that light, while more levels may seem logical, that very logic is what fails us. More levels = more separation = more delusion. This is mind getting in on the game in more subtle ways as its grip begins to slip. The more of its BS you cut through, the better it gets at posing as an ally on the quest by creating/embracing/chasing more complex and elevated structures. All these are tricks played by mind trying harder and harder to keep its seat on the imaginary throne of self. Each level raising the throne room higher in the conceptual castle. Level it!
Hi Kris,
I’m not entirely sure I follow your point about adding a level, etc., but it sounds cool nonetheless!
This whole level-thing is a somewhat arbitrary way for me to speak about the dimensionality of development, or increasing wholeness, through time. From a timeless perspective, you’re right, that doesn’t make sense. But, as I continue to point out, non-duality is not “timeless” only, but rather is the inseparability of time and timelessness, of personal and Universal. It’s the apex between & beyond the two.
So, we can do away with levels, as you suggest, and escape the “separation” of time and levels, OR from the apex we can see that there is no problem with any conception whatsoever, including that of levels. In fact, that you would use the word “escape” points out, to me, an unresolved paradox. Conceptions can just as easily serve to express, clarify, and make more whole, as they can create separation and delusion. A deluded mind sees delusion everywhere it looks. An awake mind sees no problem with any of it. What could we possibly need to escape from, while standing at the apex?
-Vincent
Escape? No escape! Not my word . No where to go! Not even to some “Apex” at which to stand, no self to stand there.
I know what you are trying to put to words. Always insufficient that, but rude not to try, right? Particularly as you fill the role of teacher of such things day to day. Useful concepts for that, as long as the student knows all such conceptualization is inherently limited. Pointers only. Hindrances if held.
An apex implies a convergence – of two. A place where both are clearly seen – from a “higher” perspective – and where they meet – but still two. Manifest on one slope, unmanifest on the other. If we add the “apex concept” – placed between duality – we are at the level 3 “trinity” I mentioned. A deep but conceptual understanding. Perhaps as high as can be taught – but also the point we must leave our teacher, all our knowledge, our beliefs – and see what sees all that, is all that, and all else. Otherwise, we are stranded on that imagined summit. No escape indeed!
Apex or nadir, no matter. All of the mountain is the mountain. Seeing the summit as a goal to seek, or as a position of advantage, is a game of ego/mind.
The sage may climb, but in that is only climbing. The sage might enjoy the view from the top, but there is only the viewing. No shelter there, no attainment, no story to be told. These are of no concern.
No questions, no problems.
How many can set aside their questions and embrace that simple teaching?
Easier for most to look into it this way: Questions are problems to be solved, which assumes something is wrong or lacking. What is being questioned? What is being sought? To what end? Reality is complete and perfect. All is as it is. Nothing is wrong or lacking that is not a delusional/empty/invention of mind. All questions arise in mind, and answering them will only further fuel mind by adding concepts and fueling beliefs. These block awakening. In essence, as far as awakening goes, ALL questions are trick questions.
Paradox, or Truth? (trick question).
Hi Kris,
I appreciate your word play, and your decidedly Advaita approach. Let me just remind you, since you seem to prefer this side of things (wherein you say there are no sides), that you are still taking an approach. You can do the “Advaita shuffle” all you want, but life is always taking a perspective.
“How many can set aside their questions and embrace that simple teaching?”
Exactly. You make my case for me here. If it were so “simple” there would be almost no one who didn’t get it. The problem is, almost none do. Hence the decision by many to use development, use perspectives, speak about time, etc. but in the service of awakening. The Advaitists take another approach, but it’s predictable, one-sided, and also kind of boring and obnoxious (or at least the people parroting it can be). It’s still valid, but when looking at the whole range of awakened perspectives, is one small part of a much bigger tapestry. I’m interested in the tapestry, not this one strand.
And please, don’t come back trying to deconstruct these statements using Advaita-logic. I’ll either ignore them or remove them, but it isn’t going to lead anywhere.
Best,
-Vincent
P.S. – Sorry, I meant to put the word “separation” not “escape” in quotes. You definitely did not use the word, “escape.” My original point remains the same however…