Just a reminder to those seeking enlightenment...

[Aaron]

HE who knows does not speak. 
He who speaks does not know.

[doc benway]

Nice to see you Aaron.

I hope things are good with you.

[thelerner]

Nice to see you Aaron.

I hope things are good with you.

ditto

HE who knows does not speak. 

He who speaks does not know.

and thats why I only type... 

 

 

plus silence makes for a boring forum

[Dainin]

What if you're not sure?

[Geof Nanto]

HE who knows does not speak. 

He who speaks does not know.

 

This implies as a corollary "She who speaks does know." 

[dust]

You know this doesn't apply to everything though, right?

 

 

 

 

Teacher:         "Kids, today we have Fireman Bill with us to talk to us about fire safety. Go ahead, Bill."

 

Fireman Bill:   

 

Teacher:         "Fireman Bill... do you... know what to do in case of an oil fire?"

 

Fireman Bill:   

 

Teacher:         "Could you explain to the class?"

 

Fireman Bill:   

 

                       ...

 

Teacher:         "Ahh, I get it. Very good. Kids, Fireman Bill is demonstrating some ancient Chinese wisdom.

                        By not saying anything, he's showing us that his knowledge is deeper than if he spoke.

                        If he opened his mouth, that would mean that he doesn't actually know anything.

                        Lao Tzu would be proud, Bill."

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Geof Nanto]

On a more serious note......

 

These sort of aphorisms are not meant as absolute truths; rather they are in dialogue with prevailing attitudes. They are an encapsulation of pertinent insights within the domain of our conceptual reality, and need to be applied wisely for benefit. 

[shanlung]

What if you're not sure?

 

It might well be that you do know even if you are not sure as against those who speak but do not know.

 

 

 

'  This implies as a corollary "She who speaks does know."  '

Normally found in cases of wives who know everything to be known , and as corollary , of mother-in-laws too.  And might well be extendable to the they of the ' They say'

 

We are so lucky to have such font of wisdoms casting pearls left and right regardless if you want the pearls or not.

 

Allow me to remain the Idiot here and where ever I go and into places where even where angels fear to tread asking if the clothings worn by emperors or kings or presidents or CEOs or soothsayers or russian with pointy elbows are as glorious as they so described.

 

Idiotic Taoist

 

[the1gza]

I would think those seeking enlightenment would be on an internet forum discussing spiritual theories, but hey...

[Aaron]

On a more serious note......

 

These sort of aphorisms are not meant as absolute truths; rather they are in dialogue with prevailing attitudes. They are an encapsulation of pertinent insights within the domain of our conceptual reality, and need to be applied wisely for benefit. 

 

I agree... so maybe we could say, "he who tells you he knows it all, really doesn't." 

 

My pet peeve is people who talk like they know what's going on, me included. The people I know that seem to know what's going on, don't tell you what's going on, they say something quippy like, "you will see when you see" or "all rivers lead to the ocean", because they know you can't explain these things, they have to be experienced. The person explaining, in most cases, hasn't experienced it. 

[Aaron]

My quippy phrase for the day...

 

He who drinks all his soda, has an empty can. 

[shanlung]

My quippy phrase for the day...

 

He who drinks all his soda, has an empty can. 

 

Drink when you are thirsty

Eat when you are hungry

 

Remember you never can buy drink or food but rent that only for a short while before they got to leave your body.

Please do the return in appropriate places.

 

Idiot who was thirsty and hungry and now looking for the loo

[Aaron]

By the way, hello Steve and Thelerner. I hope you guys are doing well. I originally said hello in my first post, but must have deleted it. 

[mYTHmAKER]

My quippy phrase for the day...

 

He who drinks all his soda, has an empty can. 

and a full bladder

[Bearded Dragon]

My pet peeve is people who talk like they know what's going on, me included. The people I know that seem to know what's going on, don't tell you what's going on, they say something quippy like, "you will see when you see" or "all rivers lead to the ocean", because they know you can't explain these things, they have to be experienced. The person explaining, in most cases, hasn't experienced it. 

 

The biggest shift I've had is maybe a few months ago when I ditched the idea of enlightenment as a colossal joke. It's kind of like people going to the moon before exploring the depths of our own ocean, and if the moon didn't exist and you could never get there. Nobody really cares about what they already have and fail to see. I think it's an aspect of humanity that needs to be crushed if you ever want to be free from conditions.

[Lth]

enlightenment is litting the light. light is spirit. or truth. so when you can see the truth and can feel spirit - you are enlightened by it. so they say he is enlightened, as he sees all things through spirit.

[Bearded Dragon]

enlightenment is litting the light. light is spirit. or truth. so when you can see the truth and can feel spirit - you are enlightened by it. so they say he is enlightened, as he sees all things through spirit.

 

Nope. Spirit is uncreated. It has never changed and never will change. You can't light it figuratively or non-figuratively. Spirit sees whether you realise it or not, so in that sense it doesn't matter at all if you consider yourself to be enlightened. The only thing you can do about it is to break down the crap in the way of the seeing.

[Lth]

you can light it metaphorically. as in light it in yourself, like clicking a switch. everything is a mental construct, until you see spirit

speaking from the position of self, or speaking from spirit to the position of self (like many religions)

Edited March 28, 2015 by Lth

[Geof Nanto]

When I first took residence in a Western Buddhist monastery as a young and desperate seeker, the nature of enlightenment was at the forefront of my mind. I remember thinking that the possession of knowledge that would make a person seem exceptional in the Buddha’s day would surely be considered common place now.  I had in mind the body of knowledge that we humans have systematically gathered over the centuries.  How could the Buddha know all this? It seemed inconceivable to me.    I remember asking a Buddhism scholar in residence and he told me the scriptures stated that the Buddha was perfectly enlightened, and for him that meant enlightened in every way. I was left feeling baffled.

 

Now, whilst I can’t speak on the nature of enlightenment, I can speak of what it is not. Enlightenment has nothing to do with conscious knowledge, facts etc. For this realm of understanding there is no better place to look than our sciences and academies of learning in general.  Here there is a proven system of building truth that has involved, and continues to involve, a multitude of individual minds pursuing and publishing specialist research. The result is an ever evolving body of knowledge – it is the best we have as humans.  

 

Enlightenment has nothing to do with that realm. Whilst not making any claim to what enlightenment is, I now know enough to state with confidence that it is a different way of being in the world, not an expanded knowledge of the world of facts. It is not something that can be spoken of, only hinted at in ambiguous words and cryptic passages like, for instance, in the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi. For me that’s what the saying “He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know” is primarily referring to. (But its beauty lies in its very ambiguity - it allows many different interpretations.)

Edited March 28, 2015 by Darkstar

[scribe]

HE who knows does not speak. 

He who speaks does not know.

 

I was thinking about this the other day again, and observing what happens when I speak - or when words form in my mind.

 

It feels like there's a 'collapse' when words form. All other thoughts need to be blocked out for this to happen. Speaking becomes a singularity - one possibility among many. 'Knowing' is a bad word in this case. An empty mind, but one with structure, can 'know' things 'like this!' - because it allows all possibilities to be real.

 

The immediate conflict between 'knowing' as 'all possibilities' and 'speaking' as 'one possibility' - is this what Lao Tzu was getting at, rather than the longer-term idea that people who talk tend not to listen?

[Geof Nanto]

I was thinking about this the other day again, and observing what happens when I speak - or when words form in my mind.

 

It feels like there's a 'collapse' when words form. All other thoughts need to be blocked out for this to happen. Speaking becomes a singularity - one possibility among many. 'Knowing' is a bad word in this case. An empty mind, but one with structure, can 'know' things 'like this!' - because it allows all possibilities to be real.

 

The immediate conflict between 'knowing' as 'all possibilities' and 'speaking' as 'one possibility' - is this what Lao Tzu was getting at, rather than the longer-term idea that people who talk tend not to listen?

 

Yes, I can feel this 'collapse' whenever I try to express ideas, like when I post here. Makes commenting here an interesting exercise in self understanding. I can easily trap myself in my own ideas. As to what Laozi was getting at - that's for us all to ponder. No interpretation can claim to be definitive. His language avoids any singularity. 

[dust]

These last couple of comments on the nature of knowledge vs enlightenment got me thinking.. and, looking at the Chinese, it seems fairly clear that it does not have to be translated as probably should not be translated as "know"

 

The Guodian uses a variation of 智 (with 干 instead of 口), whereas more modern versions use 知. They are similar, but with both of them to choose from we have a variety of meanings..

 

智 can be translated as experience, strategy, thinking, cleverness

知 can be translated as experience, knowledge, truth, understanding

 

This is gonna make me have to rethink my Guodian translation...

Edited March 29, 2015 by dustybeijing

[thelerner]

When I first took residence in a Western Buddhist monastery as a young and desperate seeker, the nature of enlightenment was at the forefront of my mind.

When you have time, I'd love to hear about what the monastery was like.

[Geof Nanto]

When you have time, I'd love to hear about what the monastery was like.

 

What it was like has so many different facets that it’s difficult to convey anything meaningful without writing a long narrative. And although it’s within the general scope of this ‘to those seeking enlightenment’ topic, it’s outside of how Aaron set it up, so I’ll confine myself to a few paragraphs.

 

For a number of years before I went there I’d been living an inner city life within a large metropolis. I’d also been practicing traditional yoga as well as meditation at a nearby suburban  ashram for a few years.  I liked the gentle yoga style, and the goal of arousing kundalini appealed to me, but I didn’t relate to the swamis. It had been a couple of years since the end of my days of heavy partying, drugs, alcohol etc and I was exploring new ways of living – or perhaps more correctly, desperately seeking meaning.

 

When I found a forest Buddhist monastery located well out of town I loved it. It felt so peaceful, like a world outside of time.  I packed up my possessions and moved there almost immediately. It was as if I was compelled.  I liked getting up before first light and walking under starlight on a trail amongst the trees to the meditation hall. The hall itself was beautifully crafted of wood and had accumulated some considerable power. The sound of the bell, the chanting, the quiet sitting, the message of the dharma – It all felt like coming home. I felt on firm ground there such as I’d never felt in school, university, business etc  - indeed in society in general.  There, for the first time in my life, I was living within a structure that felt supportive and meaningful. And within a community of fellow seekers.

 

The daily schedule outside of intensive meditation periods was reasonably laidback – early morning mediation, breakfast, communal meeting to discuss work for the day, work period until midday (jobs such as cooking, staffing the office, maintenance etc), communal midday meal (the main meal of the day), afternoon free, evening chanting followed by meditation and sometimes a dharma talk if the abbot felt like it (no discussion), private meditation or whatever until sleep.  I liked to go to bed very early and get up well before anyone else because I loved the early morning stillness in the meditation hall. It was my favourite period of the day.

 

However, as the months went by and I settled into the community, I found that all was not as harmonious as it initially seemed.  And here I could go into a whole list of problems I’ve since learnt are common, to a greater or lesser degree,  to these types of places. (Or at least they were in those days – I’m out of touch now.)  Dogma, ‘spiritual’ egos, power politics, Asian cultural baggage, hierarchical and often patriarchal structures, no avenues to work through emotions because such needs were considered to be beneath monastics, are but a few of the shortcoming that come to mind.  And in those days I was far more ready to perceive faults in others than in myself.  My memory is vague but I think I stayed about a year before leaving to explore Buddhist centres in other countries.  And from there I eventually came into Daoist based praxis via a gifted teacher – but that’s another story altogether.

[Aaron]

Thanks for all of the interesting replies. It's late and I got the idea to jump on and see what people are saying. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, in particular what does it all mean? Is there a purpose to life and if so what is it? One thing I've realized is that when I have serious issues in my life, I can almost always attribute it to morality. I know this is a tangent, but what I realize is that wrong and right are almost always involved in my problems. If I do something because I think it's the right thing to do and it causes me harm, was it the right thing to do? If I don't do something because I believe it's the right thing to do and it causes someone else harm, is it the right thing to do? A long time ago I tried to give up on the whole notion of right and wrong, but it's really hard to do, especially since it's ingrained in almost every facet of our lives. In fact I think we'd have to give up every precept of modern western society (and most eastern societies) in order to escape this idea. 

 

I think that is one reason why I can certainly question anyone that says they know what it's all about, simply because knowing in itself seems to be linked to morality. If I "know" something, then I've assumed it is accurate and hence "right". The fact is everything I know is an assumption and because I just said that, I immediately believe it's wrong. I think what I am going to concentrate on doing is causing no harm. Lately my life has been very chaotic and I'm finding it hard to be compassionate and understanding, but hopefully, if I can give up this idea of right and wrong, of knowing something, maybe I'll be able to get by on ignorance.