To Know Is To Speak?

[Erdrickgr]

"The one who knows does not speak; the one who speaks does not know. The wise man shuts his mouth and closes his gates." - Tao Te Ching, 56

 

So, would it be fair to say that the people participating at this forum don't know what they're talking about?

 

But seriously, how do you reconcile statements like this with participating at a forum, or even trying to explain Taoism to someone you love? I'm guessing the only way is by not taking the statement in a literal, absolute sense. And then there are passages which do say to talk about the Tao:

 

"Why should a man be thrown away for his evil? To conserve him was the Emperor appointed and the three ministers. Better than being in the presence of the Emperor and riding with four horses, is sitting and explaining this Dao." - Tao Te Ching, 62

 

Anyway, thoughts?

[Mal]

"The one who knows does not speak; the one who speaks does not know"

 

True, just look at all my posts for proof. But you got to do something while you are at work or watching TV.

 

You could always visit

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showto...hl=silent+forum

fun but not much happens there

[Mal]

Another one. My Sifu told me this one last week as I'm going to another kung fu school for a look at the class and he does not want me showing off

 

"Pan Chu Sek Lou Fu"

"Pretend to be a pig, to eat the tiger"

[Marblehead]

"The one who knows does not speak; the one who speaks does not know. The wise man shuts his mouth and closes his gates." - Tao Te Ching, 56

 

So, would it be fair to say that the people participating at this forum don't know what they're talking about?

 

But seriously, how do you reconcile statements like this with participating at a forum, or even trying to explain Taoism to someone you love? I'm guessing the only way is by not taking the statement in a literal, absolute sense. And then there are passages which do say to talk about the Tao:

 

"Why should a man be thrown away for his evil? To conserve him was the Emperor appointed and the three ministers. Better than being in the presence of the Emperor and riding with four horses, is sitting and explaining this Dao." - Tao Te Ching, 62

 

Anyway, thoughts?

 

 

Okay. Let's look at this chapter in its entirity. (Henricks translation)

 

 

Chapter 56

1. Those who know don't talk about it; those who talk don't know it.

 

2. He blocks up his holes,

3. Closes his doors,

4. Softens the glare,

5. Settles the dust,

6. Files down the sharp edges,

7. And unties the tangles.

8. This is called Profound Union.

 

9. Therefore, there is no way to get intimate with him,

10. But there is also no way to shun him.

11. There is no way to benefit him,

12. But there is also no way to harm him.

13. There is no way to ennoble him,

14. But there is also no way to debase him.

15. For this very reason he's the noblest thing in the world.

 

The chapter is speaking to the attributes of a Sage. A Sage cannot explain how one becomes a Sage so he/she does not talk about it. Those who talk about it really have not attained Sagehood.

 

The "Profound Union" is the attainment of wu while still in yo.

 

The Sage speaks (teaches) through his/her actions/non-actions. Yes, they do give guidance as far as pointing the student in the proper direction but they would never say something like, "You will become a Sage if you do such and such.)

 

Be well!

[CarsonZi]

As Gandhi said; "BE the change you want to see in the world". He didn't say "TALK about the change you want to see in the world".

 

Love,

Carson

[Marblehead]

As Gandhi said; "BE the change you want to see in the world". He didn't say "TALK about the change you want to see in the world".

 

Love,

Carson

 

Damn! I have to agree with something a Buddhist said.

 

Be well!

[CarsonZi]

Damn! I have to agree with something a Buddhist said.

 

Be well!

 

Woah now! Who are you calling a Buddhist hahaha....I know Gandhi wasn't really a Buddhist....He said that he "did not see Buddhism as a new religion but, historically, as the most daring effort made to reform and revitalize the sanatan Hindu tradition of India", and I certainly am not a Buddhist....so who exactly is the Buddhist you're agreeing with?

 

Love,

Carson

Edited August 14, 2009 by CarsonZi

[Marblehead]

Hehehe.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

"The one who knows does not speak; the one who speaks does not know. The wise man shuts his mouth and closes his gates." - Tao Te Ching, 56

 

So, would it be fair to say that the people participating at this forum don't know what they're talking about?

 

But seriously, how do you reconcile statements like this with participating at a forum, or even trying to explain Taoism to someone you love? I'm guessing the only way is by not taking the statement in a literal, absolute sense. And then there are passages which do say to talk about the Tao:

 

"Why should a man be thrown away for his evil? To conserve him was the Emperor appointed and the three ministers. Better than being in the presence of the Emperor and riding with four horses, is sitting and explaining this Dao." - Tao Te Ching, 62

 

Anyway, thoughts?

 

 

In the Upanishads there is a statement that says, "He who knows, knows not and those that know, do not know"

 

Which is basically saying that the act of an enlightened being is not predicated upon the idea, "I am doing this"... it's just the natural progression of the flow, the natural process of expression as a whole, a dynamic of the cosmic doing which this seeming I is merely a participant or aspect of.

 

Basically...

 

The impetus is not predicated upon ego.

 

 

At the same time... in order to manifest the pathway of expression, one must during the practice of the way, build the impressions of expressions in order to have that gift upon the re-alignment of I with Cosmos, when it's at this point the Cosmos through me and not I against the Cosmos. As naturally speaking about the nature of the ability to even speak is the best way to occupy time and the greatest gift one could offer time.

 

 

 

True, just look at all my posts for proof. But you got to do something while you are at work or watching TV.

 

You could always visit

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showto...hl=silent+forum

fun but not much happens there

 

Wow... I could actually palpably feel the meditation in that room, just by opening up the intention to put a smiley face in there... I could really feel it. Then I wanted to say so on the room, then I wanted to figure out a way to do so with smilies... but figured... eh... nice!

 

"did not see Buddhism as a new religion but, historically, as the most daring effort made to reform and revitalize the sanatan Hindu tradition of India"

 

Love,

Carson

 

It's interesting that Ghandi said sanatana dharma, because that term was first used in the Dhammapada in reference to Buddhism long before the Advaitins started using it. What's also interesting is that the Hinduism that Ghandi practiced was not even in existence pryer to the Buddha, as most all of the Upanishads and yogic teachings are post Buddha. Even the Bhagavad Gita is considered a later, post Buddha addition to the Mahabharata by certain Anthropological finds.

 

Anyway... not saying anything. Gotta love Ghandi! A good Vedantin indeed.

[nac]

Mostly, but surely there are exceptions. What about the Tao Te Ching itself?

[Sunya]

that statement is probably why Mahayana Buddhists had beef with Taoists and called them selfish solitary realizers. Whats the point of knowing if you're not going to share and help others? according to Buddhism, if you TRULY know, then you can speak boldly and skillfully. No limitations.

[Marblehead]

that statement is probably why Mahayana Buddhists had beef with Taoists and called them selfish solitary realizers. Whats the point of knowing if you're not going to share and help others? according to Buddhism, if you TRULY know, then you can speak boldly and skillfully. No limitations.

 

Wait! Please go back and read my post again. Yes, there were some of the ancient Taoists who did that but they were a rare breed. The normal Taoist Sage was always willing to help others.

 

Be well!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

In the Upanishads there is a statement that says, "He who knows, knows not and those that know, do not know"

 

Which is basically saying that the act of an enlightened being is not predicated upon the idea, "I am doing this"... it's just the natural progression of the flow, the natural process of expression as a whole, a dynamic of the cosmic doing which this seeming I is merely a participant or aspect of.

 

Basically...

 

The impetus is not predicated upon ego.

At the same time... in order to manifest the pathway of expression, one must during the practice of the way, build the impressions of expressions in order to have that gift upon the re-alignment of I with Cosmos, when it's at this point the Cosmos through me and not I against the Cosmos. As naturally speaking about the nature of the ability to even speak is the best way to occupy time and the greatest gift one could offer time.

 

Hey, thanks for the insight. Could you cite where in the Upanishads that statement is from?

I've thought about your interpretation, and am not sure I agree with you, based on the statement you quoted.

It would be nice to see the statement in context to see if that is what is meant by the surrounding context.

Maybe you could also expand on what you said, perhaps expand and clarify it? What you said doesn't really make sense to me. Maybe I'm not advanced enough.

 

It's interesting that Socrates also said something similar. Obviously he was not a Buddhist, and is probably just now working his way up to realization in a current incarnation as a minor Buddhist monk in a Bangkok ghetto, but nonetheless, he was a biggie for his limited time and place anyway.

 

 

"The admission of not knowing is what drove Socrates. 'Wisest is he who knows he does not know' is the key element of Socratic thought. Socrates himself said 'One thing only I know, and that is I know nothing'. This is what made Socrates stand out above the crowd. He was scared by not knowing and so asked questions. The most subversive of people are those that ask questions. For a question can be more explosive than a thousand answers."

 

He obviously possessed a good intellect but was stuck as a pisher struggling in the lower realms, as he didn't even meditate, plus he actually said he doesn't know anything, so why listen to him. Now that the Greater Vehicle exists, it's only a matter of a few crores of yugas until everybody gets with the program and we can dump all the other spiritual pathways into the shitcan where they belong.

 

So it brings up a good point: what about those who had or have no access to the Buddha's teachings, or if they did, would have culturally rejected them (say, the wisest Native American elder)? Does he or she just have to wait for the next bus (i.e., fortunate birth in a Buddhist-friendly land)?

Edited August 14, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm going to dinner with my girlfriend and my mother. I have to get a good "Tun" Dzogchen practice incorperating Tantra and Dzogchen in before hand as well. But...

 

Basically as well. Knowledge is relative, so the state of openness for more knowledge allows for more tools to use as expressions, so in this case there is never an end to knowing.

 

What omniscience is in Buddhism when they say, "The stage of no more knowledge", is in reference to knowing the how's and the why's, but not all the what's. As the infinite cosmos will continue to manifest totally new creations all the time from the spontaneous cosmos generator known as Pratityasamutpada.

 

A Buddha doesn't know all the what's or the infinite particulars originating from the beginningless chain of how's and why's, co-dependent-arising. But lives from the constant answer of the question, "How does all this do?" and can enter a state of consciousness where he has no location thus can remote view at will and see if your girlfriend is cheating on you or really just stuck in traffic on the BQE.

 

The thing about the above mentioned platitude at the beginning of this thread is that it's really relative and to take such things at face value can lead to all sorts of mental dogmas.

 

Which of course is why the Buddha didn't talk in Platitudes. He was quite succinct. Again... another why I consider his path the most clear path from beginning to end.

 

EDIT: I was in a hurry when I wrote this and it sure came out badly... Let me re-phrase.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I'm going to dinner with my girlfriend and my mother. I have to get a good "Tun" Dzogchen practice incorperating Tantra and Dzogchen in before hand as well. But...

 

Basically as well. Knowledge is relative, so the state of not knowing allows space for more knowledge, so in this case there is never an end to knowing.

 

What omniscience is in Buddhism means where one is beyond needing to know more is in reference to knowing the how's and the why's, but not all the what's.

 

A Buddha doesn't know all the what's or the infinite particulars originating from the beginningless chain of how's and why's. But lives from the constant answer of the question, "How does all this do?" and can enter a state of consciousness where he has no location thus can remote view at will.

 

The thing about the above mentioned platitude at the beginning of this thread is that it's really relative and to take such things at face value can lead to all sorts of mental dogmas.

 

Which of course is why the Buddha didn't talk in Platitudes. He was quite succinct. Again... another why I consider his path the most clear path from beginning to end.

 

 

Hmmm. thanks for sidestepping the question...again, where in the Upanishads does that qoute come from, and could you more clearly explain it? Could you lead me through what you meant? I am unable to follow your line of thinking. Your words seem like they make sense, but I get nothing out of them. I can read Buddhist teachers and follow them, but forgive me, you're not being clear. Does anyone else agree, or am I the only one left wondering by most of the Buddhaspeak in this forum? Hey, remember, most of us are Taoists...if you cannot state clearly what you have to say, it ain't clear. Have a good dinner... let me guess... Chinese?

 

 

.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hey, thanks for the insight. Could you cite where in the Upanishads that statement is from?

I've thought about your interpretation, and am not sure I agree with you, based on the statement you quoted.

It would be nice to see the statement in context to see if that is what is meant by the surrounding context.

Maybe you could also expand on what you said, perhaps expand and clarify it? What you said doesn't really make sense to me. Maybe I'm not advanced enough.

 

The statement is from the Kena Upanishad.

 

What I mean is that, the ego, or the little self, even if aware of the transparency of all things, including itself, thus has the experience of omnipresence, basically has omniscience of the how things happen by surrender of this identification, and likewise the identification of all things so awareness does not confine itself anymore.

 

In Hinduism, the statement would mean, I cannot know, but by surrendering to Brahman, the lord of all things, who is the presence behind all things and one with all things, direct experiencing of the lords always knowing happens.

 

It's interesting that Socrates also said something similar. Obviously he was not a Buddhist, and is probably just now working his way up to realization in a current incarnation as a minor Buddhist monk in a Bangkok ghetto, but nonetheless, he was a biggie for his limited time and place anyway.

 

LOL! Funny... but who knows?

 

"The admission of not knowing is what drove Socrates. 'Wisest is he who knows he does not know' is the key element of Socratic thought. Socrates himself said 'One thing only I know, and that is I know nothing'. This is what made Socrates stand out above the crowd. He was scared by not knowing and so asked questions. The most subversive of people are those that ask questions. For a question can be more explosive than a thousand answers."

 

Yeah, I used to drive my parents mad! "Who, what, where, when, why, how". My Mom's boyfriends used to make fun of me, in a sweet way.

 

He obviously possessed a good intellect but was stuck as a pisher struggling in the lower realms, as he didn't even meditate, plus he actually said he doesn't know anything, so why listen to him. Now that the Greater Vehicle exists, it's only a matter of a few crores of yugas until everybody gets with the program and we can dump all the other spiritual pathways into the shitcan where they belong.

 

I bet he had quite a good amount of spontaneous joy! I never really studied Socrates.

So it brings up a good point: what about those who had or have no access to the Buddha's teachings, or if they did, would have culturally rejected them (say, the wisest Native American elder)? Does he or she just have to wait for the next bus (i.e., fortunate birth in a Buddhist-friendly land)?

 

Before the Buddha was here, there were solitary realizers who didn't teach but had realization of dependent origination and who squelched the snares of craving through contemplation of emptiness. There are Navaho, Hopi and Pueblo Indian traditions that have realization and wisdom somewhat close to what the Buddha realized, but maybe not to completion. I had a very powerful dream once where I was hanging out with some Hopi Medicine men in an Adobe house, it was powerful and lucid with lots of good vibrations. Every tradition of the spirit has some good wisdom, even if doesn't lead to complete Buddhahood. Besides, if a person has the inner conditions for realization of the nature of things, it doesn't matter if there are not the outer conditions available for it's very clear expression as the Buddha had. It's not all so black and white. But, the universe does indeed work in one way and one way only. Dependent Origination is the way it all works. That's the organic mechanics of the cosmic clock.

 

Hmmm. thanks for sidestepping the question...again, where in the Upanishads does that qoute come from, and could you more clearly explain it? Could you lead me through what you meant? I am unable to follow your line of thinking. Your words seem like they make sense, but I get nothing out of them. I can read Buddhist teachers and follow them, but forgive me, you're not being clear. Does anyone else agree, or am I the only one left wondering by most of the Buddhaspeak in this forum? Hey, remember, most of us are Taoists...if you cannot state clearly what you have to say, it ain't clear. Have a good dinner... let me guess... Chinese?

.

 

It's been postponed for a half hour, so I ended up talking a bit more. It's going to be Italian.