There is Only One

[Starvingpercussionist]

Let me know what you guys think of this. I'm still working on it, but I could use some critique.



There Is Only One


What is the nature of a paradox? Is it a statement of truth, or a question without an answer? Could it be both? What does that mean, if it could be both at the same time? Is that a paradox as well? If a paradox is simply a statement of truth, then could it contain a lie? If a paradox is a question without an answer, then is it really even a question at all? Perhaps the lie lies in our assumptions, and the question is only one that we pose to ourselves. Is a paradox only itself in reality, yet only a direction pointing to nonsense in our minds? Whatever the truth may be, the paradox still stands as a contradiction in logic. It shows the limitations of logic where there is a question but no solution - where there is a problem that cannot be fixed with any available method.

What does it mean if you hear that we are all one when everything that you see must be seperate from you or else you could not see it in the first place? Is that the lie, or is it only a lie coming from an error in your perception of the truth? If thoughts are illusions, then what is behind them? Are they only echos of space and time? Is your mind simply a place where echos sort themselves out and masquerade as an understanding of reality? For logic to exist there must be more than one thing being observered. Symbols, meanings, and forms are the three component parts of logic. Meaning is a thought attached to the symbol that is for logic purposes equated with a reality, which is the form. When any of the three parts is missing, there cannot be logical identification. So what then of a paradox, where there is symbol and meaning forming a question that has a formless answer? Is that answer also meaningless as well as ineffable? So what is the answer to a paradox if not nonsense, and from where do we derive the word 'nonsense' if not from some experience? What is the experience of nonsense then, if it is not the experience of nonexistence? Is it oneness? Do we equate the formless with the meaningless because there are no symbols adequate enough to convey the meaning, or because the formless really is meaningless?

What lies outside of the mind is impossible to comprehend. There is no time, since past and future only exist as thoughts. Therefore everything that ever has or ever will happen is happening right now. In the silence behind your thoughts, in this moment, is logic necessary? Connected only to what exists outside your mind, right now, can you see how time is a misperception of the present moment? Can you see beyond the confines of your head without any interpretation whatsoever? If you have need of thinking, you have need of sorting out meanings with symbols, and yet you can never catagorize that which is formless without creating a false meaning. So what is oneness? It just is. There is no meaning for it except for what you make. So why talk about it? As an impossibility in its essence, it is the answer to all paradoxes. You simply cannot see nothingness because it does not exist, and yet you see it nonetheless. And yet while this may be true, what you may be seeing is everything all at once, there is no way to know the difference. Therein lies the fundamental paradox that is oneness. Yet, if oneness is a paradox, can it not also be the answer to all paradoxes?

If the paradox's question is taken as a statement, then there is no paradox, only reality. What then of oneness? If it is possible to achieve this sight of nothingness, then what would be doing the "seeing"? You can simply call it "the observer". You have to be the observer, and anything it observes cannot be you. Why is this? In oneness, you see nothing and yet are still self-aware. If you were not self aware in oneness, there would be no oneness, only nothing, and nothing cannot exist. If the observer is not a thing, is seeing it therefore impossible? One would think so, but it leaves this question: if you cannot see the observer, is it always changing, or always the same? Reality is always changing, so is the observer not a reality if it cannot change or is the observer the only constant in an ever changing existence? Perhaps we have yet another paradox in the observer, or perhaps we have the only answer.

What practical problems does any of this solve? Would seeing how we are all one change your perception to one that is simply the truth? Would this new perception allow you to open up to unconditional love if all lies were banished from your mind? How can you truly love what you know is a lie? Could you only love everything if you see everything in yourself? Maybe the answer is everything, if everything observed is reality. What then are your thoughts but lies, and what is the paradox but the only truth if it points only to reality?

Some questions don't need answers, so why try to figure out a paradox? Perhaps because unraveling a paradox really unravels nothing but your false sense of knowledge. There is no answer in logic, but as far we know, the answer could very well be another paradox. The paradox baffles the mind, and yet it is only a reflection of reality, unless it is a lie. Yet if it is only a reflection, can it ever truly be real? Can the answer be truly seen? Who shaves the barber of Seville if he's the only barber, and he only shaves those who cannot shave themselves? Nobody, or maybe the hand of God. Who knows? "I always lie". If that's true, then would I be lying and therefore telling the truth? Simple paradoxes really all stem from oneness, because it is the original paradox, which is to say, the paradox of all origins. Upon seeing what cannot possibly be seen, what are you looking at? Is there an answer, or is there just a reality? Again, we find ourselves at nonsense. What's a singularity, infinitely dense, or infinitely empty? Is oneness completely meaningful, or devoid of any meaning at all?

Nonsense is an experience, not just gibberish or something to be ignored. It is simply what it is: the absense of any sense - pure beingness with absolutely nothing attached, this is oneness. The only place to find this is within yourself. If you look at the observer, there is nothing there. This is true for everyone, and yet what is reality if it is not the truth for everyone?

So again, what is the nature of a paradox? If the answer is another paradox, then the question is the answer.

Unconditional love is a mystery, since it defies logic. What is love if it is not unconditional - is it some strange form of hatred? Is it then still a mystery, or is there a logical explanation for its existence? Releasing all thoughts from your mind, you will find that love has been in your heart all along. It just is. There is no reason why it is there. Is love the purest emotion magnified, or the summation of all feelings? If love is a paradox, then it must be both, otherwise it would not be a mystery at all. If it's not a mystery, are we even sure that it is a reality? The paradox shows the flaw in logic, and unconditional love shows what is on the other side. If the answer to a paradox is another paradox, then love must be the answer while yet being a paradox in itself. Loving for the sake of love is nonsense until you know what unconditional love really is. It is simply seeing yourself in all things. It is opening up to all that is and seeing all for what it is without accepting symbols in the place of forms. The meaning of love is beyond the scope of any writing to describe, because it is only defined in actions which are as various as reality itself. Love is a perception without any logical interpretations. Love sees all situations exactly the same because love sees itself in everything. What does the observer of love see in it? The observer sees everything, that's why it is unconditional. That is the paradox. Although there may be many paradoxes in form, in truth there is only one. So with reality, so with love.

[healixe]

i like it lol,
and thanks for introducing me to tao.

[Starvingpercussionist]

Here's the whole Tao if you're interested.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html