A mystery is only a mystery to the extent that we don't understand what it is. And to the extent that we do, then it's no longer a mystery. So if this can be applied to just about any mystery, then why couldn't it be applied to all mysteries? Therefore, I'm speaking about what is a mystery and what is not a mystery, and hence both.Originally posted by wuliheron
Balance is more of an issue for Buddhists than Taoists. This also makes sense in light of your other focuses on consciousness and consensual reality. Essentially, it is the more Pantheistic view of the mystery within. Thus, in some ways it denies it is a mystery.
As I asked earlier, which is it you wish to discuss? The mystery within or consciousness or consensual reality?
The reason I start with the Mystery Within (I'm not sure if this has formerly been addressed as such, but it almost sounds that way according to your statements), is that it allows me to refer to the "external nature" of things and, the "internal nature" of things, whereby it's much easier to understand that which is "external" (and observable), to that which is "internal" and may indeed be termed "a mystery" by others. So it seemed like a good way to get at that which may not be readily apparent (and deemed a mystery).
But still, it seems like we exist in one of two camps, that which is rational (science), and that which is irrational (religion).Originally posted by wuliheron
Likewise, the reality of our already existent integration of the rational and irrational provides a more complete and elegant view of the situation in general. Rather than automatically assuming a causal view of balanced opposites it provides a broader context within which these can also be found.