I have written about this before, and feel called to revisit it.
Are there paradoxes? I cannot find any.
Right now, I am trying to find examples of paradoxes, and they are not coming to mind.
THE APPEARANCE OF PARADOXES
That said, I understand how there can be an appearance of paradoxes.
If we have bought into a certain set of ideas, we can make it look as if there are paradoxes.
Here are the two essential ones:
(a) A thought can reflect a full, absolute, and final truth. A thought is true or not.
(b) If one thought is true, alternate thoughts cannot be true. Only one perspective is true, not the other.
THE NATURE OF THOUGHTS
For me, it’s not that way.
(a) Thoughts are questions about the world. They are here to help me orient and navigate in the world and have a limited practical function only. They are provisional and always up for revision.
(b) Each thought has limited validity. The kind of validity it has is different for each thought and has to be explored. Usually, it’s valid in a few different ways.
APPARENT PARADOXES
So to a list of apparent paradoxes.
A good way to approach it may be too look for polarities since I imagine these may appear as paradoxes to a certain mindset.
God is everything – including all we call good and bad, or good and evil. –> God forms itself into all of it. It’s all the divine expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways. The play in itself is the purpose. Our ideas of good and bad, or good and evil, are ideas. They are not inherent in reality. Here, we can replace the word “God” with existence, the universe, this living planet, or something similar.
I am consciousness and matter. –> To me, the appearance of matter happens within and as the consciousness I am. In my first-person experience, what a thought calls matter is made up of the consciousness I am. It has to be that way. I also see that the appearance of matter comes from sense field information – sensations, sight, sound, taste, and so on, with an overlay of mental field representations. (This only says something about my nature, it doesn’t say anything about the nature of existence itself.)
A person can be good and bad. –> Yes, of course. We all have all in us. Everything I see in the world mirrors what’s in me at a human level. I can take any story I have about someone or something, turn it to myself, and find genuine and specific examples of how it’s true. Also, ideas of good and bad are created by the mind, they are not inherent in reality. They reflect our own biases and culture, not anything else.
An experience, something I lived, can be good and bad. –> Again, yes of course. It all depends on the perspective, and they all have some validity. I have had a chronic illness since my teens. I can see it as unfortunate in that it has limited my activities and life in the world in many ways.
I can also see it as a gift. It has allowed me to find my value independent of activity and achievements. It has allowed me to explore simpler ways to explore my nature. (For instance, to notice that this whole field of experience is already noticed and allowed. It’s noticed by the consciousness I am before the noticing is consciously reflected in mental representations. It’s allowed by the consciousness I am, by the capacity I am, by space, by life.)
Also, good and bad are ideas created by this mind. They reflect similar ideas from my parents and culture. They are not inherent in reality or life.
I asked AI for a list of more apparent paradoxes, which had slipped my mind. These are ones I have explored a lot since my teens.
Emptiness and fullness. –> What I am is capacity for this whole field of experience, and forms itself into it all. The consciousness I am forms itself into any and all experiences. In that sense, I am emptiness and fullness. That’s the nature of consciousness. Empty and full are two aspects of the same.
One and many. –> To me, the world – and all experiences – happen within and as what I am. In that sense, it’s one and many. It’s all consciousness taking these appearances, and it takes many appearances. The mental field can create inumerable imaginary dividing lines that creates the appearance of many out of it. One and many are two aspects of the same.
No-self and self. –> There is a human self here, in a conventional sense, and also mental representations of a doer, an observer, and so on. And it’s not what I more fundamentally am. The consciousness I am, which forms itself into the appearances of all of it, can also be called a self, although it’s a self without an other.
Seeker and sought. –> This hasn’t been as big a part of my process as it has for some, but it can appear as a paradox. The consciousness I am seeks itself. It may take itself to be something within itself – this human self, a doer, observer, and so on – and seek itself without noticing that it already is it.
Doing and non-doing. –> This human self is doing a lot of things. And yet, it’s not what I more fundamentally am. He happens on his own. He lives his own life. There is also doing and non-doing in a more conventional sense. After waking up, I wait to see what this human self will do. When is he getting out of bed? At a human level, I wait to be moved, and it happens at the right time.
Doing and non-doing in explorations. –> When I explore my nature, or this human self, there is also a mix of apparent doing and non-doing. It all lives its own life. It’s all happening on its own. At the same time, there can be intention here, curiosity, receptivity, a sense of urgency. That too happens on its own, and moves this human self.
Effort and effortlessness in explorations. –> There is a mix of effort and effortlessness in explorations. Many explorations – basic meditation, inquiry, even heart-centered practices – involve noticing what’s already here. The noticing itself is relatively effortless, and nothing needs to be created or manufactured. At the same time, there is some effort in that there is intention.
Freedom and absence of freedom. –> There is freedom here in a few different ways. For instance, there is a freedom to notice and allow what’s here, since it’s already noticed and allowed. There is even a freedom to allow this human self struggling with what’s here. That too is already noticed and allowed. When there is healing for issues, there is a sense of freedom from the dynamics around the issue. When a story is seen through, there is more freedom around the story. At the same time, there is no freedom since it’s all happening. It all lives its own life. This human self cannot decide what’s here in the sense fields. At a human level, there is surrender to what’s here. Even if it’s a surrender to the struggle that this human self experiences, and sometimes engages with.
THOUGHTS ARE QUESTIONS
Are these paradoxes? Only if we stay within the realm of thought and assume the validity of different thoughts are mutually exclusive, and that seems misguided. (It’s an expression of the mindset that came with the agricultural revolution.)
I notice that each of the examples above involve a polarity. My mental field creates the idea of a polarity, to help make sense of the world. It also sees how there is validity in each end of the polarity, and in the polarity as a whole and its dynamics.
The thoughts are questions, and there are different kinds of validity in each thought. Togther, they create a richer and fuller picture.
They create a map, a way to help me orient, that gives a fuller picture, although there is always more to explore and further to go. These questions only scratch the surface.
Reality is always different from and more than my maps. It’s also less than my maps.
In what way is it less than? One example is that it’s capacity for it all, taking all these forms.
MY EXPLORATIONS
In the year before the oneness shift in my teens, I got into Fritjof Capra and systems views. This helped me explore all of this – how thoughts are questions about the world, provisional, and that the different thoughts and perspectives all have some kind of validity. (Even the most outlandish ones have some kind of validity, for instance, as projections.)
In the oneness shift, all this came strongly to the foreground. What I write about here was what was revealed to me and what I explored at the time.
I have continued to explore this in many different ways.
Mainly, by noticing.
And also through different forms of more intentional and structured explorations like basic meditation and different forms of inquiry. I have especially enjoyed the Big Mind process, sense field explorations / Kiloby inquiries, The Work of Byron Katie, and the Headless experiments.