Why True Words Seem Paradoxical

In the Tao Te Ching Lao Tzu (or whoever it was) states, ‘True words seem paradoxical’. I believe that if we understand this statement then we understand metaphysics. Not fully, perhaps, but we will have understood a fundamental principle that allows us to solve metaphysical problems, answer all metaphysical questions and begin, at least, to construct a systematic ‘theory of everything’ that helps us understand ourselves and the world around us.     

This proposal might at first glance seem wildly far-fetched. After all, an army of dedicated philosophers have been trying for many centuries to solve the problems of metaphysics and failing. To this day metaphysicians are unable to decide a single metaphysical question. Most believe that metaphysics is incomprehensible.

The history of philosophy is not, however, a reason for being sceptical of my proposal. Rather, it is the hard evidence that makes the proposal plausible. I am suggesting that the widespread inability of philosophers to make sense of metaphysics is a direct result of their failure to understand that true words seem paradoxical. Unless we know this is not the case then we cannot be sure the proposal is not true.

To be quite clear, I am proposing that if we understand Lao Tzu’s brief remark and its implications for metaphysics then this can only be because we have a sound understanding of metaphysics and are, therefore, in a position to build in our heads a systematic fundamental theory that makes sense to us and is capable of explaining everything.   

What did Lao Tzu mean?

Lao Tzu’s words are an affirmation of nonduality.

For the nondual doctrine of the mystics or ‘Perennial’ philosophy the true nature of reality is inconceivable and unsayable. It lies beyond the categories required for thought and speech. However, it does have two aspects about which we can speak and think. These aspects are complementary and contradictory. The Buddhist master Nagarjuna explains this with his doctrine of ‘Two Truths’ or ‘Two Worlds’.

It is because there are these two truth and worlds that the literature of mysticism appears to be littered with contradictions. They are not actually contradictions. Loa Tzu tells us that true words seem paradoxical, not that they actually are.

Nagarjuna calls these two aspects the ‘Conventional’ and ‘Ultimate’ worlds or truths. We can see this pairing of truths in the statement of Heraclitus ‘We both are and are not’. For a conventional view both ‘me’ and ‘my world’ are taken as real, and we can say ‘We are’.  For an ultimate view, however, as Nagarjuna proves in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, nothing (no ‘thing’) really exists or every really happens, and we must say ‘We are not’. To take account of these two perspectives we must say ‘We are and are not’. As a first approximation to the meaning of this statement we could see it as the claim that we are, but by reduction we are not.          

We can apply this formula to any metaphysical problem. Do we have freewill or not? Does the universe begin with something or nothing? Is space-time continuous or granular? Philosophers cannot decide these questions, and this would be because all their extreme, positive, partial and seemingly non-paradoxical answers do not survive analysis. They do not take account of the inconceivability of reality and the need to describe it in terms of its two complementary aspects. They assume it must be exclusively this or that, and so are baffled when both extreme views are rejected by logic and reason.

They do not study mysticism and the principle of non-duality so do not understand why true words seem paradoxical. Consequently, they are confused by the language of mysticism and unable to make sense of metaphysics. 

This a sketch of the beginning of the argument I present in my forthcoming book In Pursuit of the Inconceivable: An Investigation of Metaphysics and Mysticism. I show that there is only one available solution for metaphysics, describe how it works in respect of a variety of metaphysical questions and explore its ramifications for religion, psychology, consciousness studies, physics and everyday life as a human being. 

In Pursuit of the Inconceivable is an explanation of the metaphysical foundation of the teachings of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Al-Hallaj, Imam Ali, Meister Eckhart, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Osho, Sadhguru and all nonduality teachers in all possible universes. Some would include amongst them Jesus.  

What I have tried to do is make it clear that metaphysics is not a matter of opinion. According to logic and reason there is only one ‘explanation of everything’ that works and it is the nondual explanation endorsed by the Perennial philosophy. Scholarly logic and ‘hands on’ self-enquiry are, as we would expect in a reasonable universe, in precise agreement as to the true nature of reality.

We will not see harmony of logic and experience, however, unless we study the philosophical foundation of mysticism and grasp the reason why true words seem paradoxical. Then we will see the reason why metaphysical questions are undecidable and the reason why Nagarjuna went to such lengths to prove it. For the mystic the results of metaphysics are not a problem but a straightforward proof of what is true.   

These issues are addressed in depth in my book In Pursuit of the Inconceivable (Essentia Books). Further details may be found at peterguyjones.com