Post Reply
4 years ago  ::  May 17, 2011 - 6:53PM #1
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

The Void is a Plenum.


A. All things are devoid of independent existence. (Sunyata)


B. All things manifest from the same Source. (Tathata)


C. All things can be said to neither not exist nor to exist.


 


Sunyatatha is my attempt at comprehending the dualistic appearance of Reality. As indicated by the Sunya portion, Reality is Empty, but as indicated by the Tatha portion, Reality is Full. While this may seem to be contradictory, it is only so linguistically as the actual nature of Reality is not a choice between Sunyata and Tathata as the One True Story. There is truth in Sunyata and there is truth in Tathata but Truth can be found in neither story alone.


We make a major mistake in imaging dualism as contradiction; I submit the dualism should be imaged as paradox. The solution to the question of dualism is realizing the dualism is a logical paradox rather than an existential state of affairs. All things are Empty - that does not mean they are False. All things are Full - that does not mean they are True. We can almost wrap our minds around Emptiness and Fullness but Reality is not subject to either rational or intuitive logic.


Sunyata is true but we should not dwell there. Tathata is true but we should not dwell there either. They are not independent of each other and cannot exist apart from the other. Yin/Emptiness/This is one aspect of Reality, Yang/Suchness/That is another aspect of Reality. Yin/Emptiness/This can be known, is true, but is not Real. Yang/Suchness/That can be known, is true, but is not Real.  Tao is True and Real, but cannot be known in the same sense that we know One plus one equals two.


Rather than contradiction, this is paradox. Emptiness is a partial understanding, Suchness is a partial understanding. The reason they are partial is that neither alone is Reality. They are codependent - without Suchness, there would not be Emptiness. There is no inherent Tathata, there is no inherent Sunyata. By inherent, I mean an independently existing reality. With the negation of inherency, contradiction is replaced with paradox. When one thinks contradiction, one is thinking dualistically, as in there are two distinct realities, one of which cannot be true. When one thinks paradox, one is thinking nondualistically, as in there is a unity that can be explained two ways, neither of which is true.


Does it matter that neither side is true? Not in the least, for Reality is much grander than either Tathata or Sunyata can encompass.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 19, 2011 - 4:07AM #2
Namchuck
Posts: 11,881

May 17, 2011 -- 6:53PM, Neomonist wrote:


The Void is a Plenum.


A. All things are devoid of independent existence. (Sunyata)


B. All things manifest from the same Source. (Tathata)


C. All things can be said to neither not exist nor to exist.


 


Sunyatatha is my attempt at comprehending the dualistic appearance of Reality. As indicated by the Sunya portion, Reality is Empty, but as indicated by the Tatha portion, Reality is Full. While this may seem to be contradictory, it is only so linguistically as the actual nature of Reality is not a choice between Sunyata and Tathata as the One True Story. There is truth in Sunyata and there is truth in Tathata but Truth can be found in neither story alone.


We make a major mistake in imaging dualism as contradiction; I submit the dualism should be imaged as paradox. The solution to the question of dualism is realizing the dualism is a logical paradox rather than an existential state of affairs. All things are Empty - that does not mean they are False. All things are Full - that does not mean they are True. We can almost wrap our minds around Emptiness and Fullness but Reality is not subject to either rational or intuitive logic.


Sunyata is true but we should not dwell there. Tathata is true but we should not dwell there either. They are not independent of each other and cannot exist apart from the other. Yin/Emptiness/This is one aspect of Reality, Yang/Suchness/That is another aspect of Reality. Yin/Emptiness/This can be known, is true, but is not Real. Yang/Suchness/That can be known, is true, but is not Real.  Tao is True and Real, but cannot be known in the same sense that we know One plus one equals two.


Rather than contradiction, this is paradox. Emptiness is a partial understanding, Suchness is a partial understanding. The reason they are partial is that neither alone is Reality. They are codependent - without Suchness, there would not be Emptiness. There is no inherent Tathata, there is no inherent Sunyata. By inherent, I mean an independently existing reality. With the negation of inherency, contradiction is replaced with paradox. When one thinks contradiction, one is thinking dualistically, as in there are two distinct realities, one of which cannot be true. When one thinks paradox, one is thinking nondualistically, as in there is a unity that can be explained two ways, neither of which is true.


Does it matter that neither side is true? Not in the least, for Reality is much grander than either Tathata or Sunyata can encompass.




 


The sheer wonder of the fortuitous parallelism of biophysic variables. :)

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 19, 2011 - 12:15PM #3
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

May 19, 2011 -- 4:07AM, Namchuck wrote:


The sheer wonder of the fortuitous parallelism of biophysic variables. :)





Parallelism implies duality; Sunyatatha implies unity.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2011 - 2:48AM #4
Namchuck
Posts: 11,881

May 19, 2011 -- 12:15PM, Neomonist wrote:


May 19, 2011 -- 4:07AM, Namchuck wrote:


The sheer wonder of the fortuitous parallelism of biophysic variables. :)





Parallelism implies duality; Sunyatatha implies unity.


 





Implications, implications.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2011 - 2:52AM #5
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

May 20, 2011 -- 2:48AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 19, 2011 -- 12:15PM, Neomonist wrote:


May 19, 2011 -- 4:07AM, Namchuck wrote:


The sheer wonder of the fortuitous parallelism of biophysic variables. :)





Parallelism implies duality; Sunyatatha implies unity.


 





Implications, implications.





The 'parallelism' is linguistic, not existential.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2011 - 4:33AM #6
Namchuck
Posts: 11,881

May 20, 2011 -- 2:52AM, Neomonist wrote:


May 20, 2011 -- 2:48AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 19, 2011 -- 12:15PM, Neomonist wrote:


May 19, 2011 -- 4:07AM, Namchuck wrote:


The sheer wonder of the fortuitous parallelism of biophysic variables. :)





Parallelism implies duality; Sunyatatha implies unity.


 





Implications, implications.





The 'parallelism' is linguistic, not existential.


 




As is everything you said.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2011 - 5:03AM #7
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

May 20, 2011 -- 4:33AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 20, 2011 -- 2:52AM, Neomonist wrote:


May 20, 2011 -- 2:48AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 19, 2011 -- 12:15PM, Neomonist wrote:


May 19, 2011 -- 4:07AM, Namchuck wrote:


The sheer wonder of the fortuitous parallelism of biophysic variables. :)





Parallelism implies duality; Sunyatatha implies unity.


 





Implications, implications.





The 'parallelism' is linguistic, not existential.


 




As is everything you said.





Parallelism is dualism defined differently. I have the same regard for dualism that you do for theism.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 21, 2011 - 2:56AM #8
Namchuck
Posts: 11,881

May 20, 2011 -- 5:03AM, Neomonist wrote:


May 20, 2011 -- 4:33AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 20, 2011 -- 2:52AM, Neomonist wrote:


May 20, 2011 -- 2:48AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 19, 2011 -- 12:15PM, Neomonist wrote:


May 19, 2011 -- 4:07AM, Namchuck wrote:


The sheer wonder of the fortuitous parallelism of biophysic variables. :)





Parallelism implies duality; Sunyatatha implies unity.


 





Implications, implications.





The 'parallelism' is linguistic, not existential.


 




As is everything you said.





Parallelism is dualism defined differently. I have the same regard for dualism that you do for theism.


 




:)

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook