[DDJ Meaning] Chapter 56

[dawei]

David Hinton 2002
56

Those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know.
Block the senses and close the mind,
blunt edges, loosen tangles, soften glare, mingle dust:
this is called dark-enigma union.
It can't be embraced and can't be ignored,
can't be enhanced and can't be harmed,
can't be treasured and can't be despised,
for it's the treasure of all beneath heaven.

 

Chad Hansen 2009
56

Those who know to act do not speak. 
Those who speak, do not know to act. 
Shut up its exchanges, 
close its gates. 
Dull its sharpness, 
undo its divisions. 
Balance its brightness, 
treat its particles as identical. 
This is called the abstruse identity. 
Hence we cannot obtain and be close. 
Cannot obtain and be distant. 
Cannot obtain and benefit. 
Cannot obtain and harm. 
Cannot obtain and value. 
Cannot obtain and debase. 
Hence we deem the social world as valuable. 

 

 

Moss Roberts 2001
56

Those who know it do not say it;
Those who sat it do not know it.
Those who know bar interaction,
Shut and seal the gates and doors;
They dull their keen edge and
Resolve their differences,
Reconcile the points of view
And blend with the lowly dust.
This we call sublime at-oneness.
Favour affects them not,
Nor disfavour,
Neither advantage
No injury,
Neither honour
Nor dishonour.
Thus those who know are honoured in the world.

 
 

Lok Sang Ho 2002
56
Those who know do not speak much.
Those who speak much do not know.
Block the passage of exchange with the outside world.
Close the doors;
Blunt the protruding points;
Absolve the disputes;
Tone down the dazzling light;
Receive outside stimuli with an equanimous mind.
This is called the mystical union.
With a non-possessive mind we get together;
With a non-possessive mind we separate.
With a non-possessive mind we experience what seems advantageous to us;
With a non-possessive mind we experience what seems disadvantageous;
With a non-possessive mind we experience high positions;
With a non-possessive mind we experience low positions.
This way we achieve the most valuable under heaven. 

 

 

Gu Zhengku 1993
56

He who is wise will not speak;
He who speaks is not wise.
When one blocks the openings (of knowledge),
Shuts the door (of desires),
Dulls sharpness,
Stays away from entanglements,
Glows with veiled radiance,
Mingles with dust,
That is called subtle identification.
Hence you are in no way
To be friends with him,
To estrange him,
To benefit him,
To harm him,
To honor him,
To debase him.
That is why he is held in esteem in the world.

 

 

Lin Yutang 1948
56

Beyond Honor and Disgrace
He who knows does not speak; 
He who speaks does not know. 
   Fill up its apertures, 
   Close its doors, 
   Dull its edges, 
   Untie its tangles, 
   Soften its light, 
   Submerge its turmoil, 
   - This is the Mystic Unity.

Then love and hatred cannot touch him. 
Profit and loss cannot reach him. 
Honor and disgrace cannot affect him. 
Therefore is he always the honored one of the world.

 

Flowing Hands 1987
56

Those who are enlightened, sit in silence.
Those who think they know something, are forever talking.
In silence and peace one can become enlightened.
No one can teach someone else how to become enlightened,
for it stems from within the heart.
Be at one with Heaven and Earth and then you can become enlightened.
He who has become enlightened, is unconcerned with friends, enemies,
honour or disgrace, with wealth and titles.
For he has become at one with the Dao.
This is the highest state of man.
 

[Marblehead]

Live life in moderation,

 

Then,

 

Sit down and shut up.

 

[OldDog]

Once again Flowing Hands has captured a chapter most poetically and interestingly.

 

I have been thinking a lot lately about the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. This chapter seems most appropriate to that inquiry.

 

Most commonly we consider knowledge to be that which is acquired by the senses and organized in the mind by means of discernment, reason and other cognitive processes. This type of knowledge tends to dominate our attention and being. What about other forms of knowledge?

 

Its not too far a leap to recognize phyical knowledge. Muscle memory, for example, is a type of physical knowledge. Certainly the body can learn to perform various actions autonomically. Perhaps this is a large part of what traditional taiji training does. Anyone that has trained in taiji has been, on occasion, surprised at how the body was able to respond seemingly without conscious direction.

 

But what about spiritual knowledge. Is it possible to know things outside of mental or physical processes?  How would such knowledge be acquired? And perhaps a more interesting question is; Can spiritual knowledge be emplyed consciously? I wonder. It would seem, at least to me,  that such knowledge is suggested in Flowing Hands translation. 

 

In silence and peace one can become enlightened.

No one can teach someone else how to become enlightened,

For it stems from within the heart.

Be at one with Heaven and Earth

and then you can become enlightened.

 

Certainly has a spiritual ring to it.

 

The second line cited says it cannot be taught ... but I wonder if that is really the case. Does not neidan practice, at least in part, teach how to quieten the heart-mind. If this is not teaching enlightenment then what is it? If nothing else, it sets up a state of receptiveness. Perhaps this chapter is pointing to such practice.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by OldDog
Bad spelling

[wandelaar]

All kinds of things are happening inside our mind, and as our mind is also part of the world one can learn about (part of) the world by noticing what happens inside of us.

[OldDog]

In Chuangtse it is said ...

 

Human life is limited, but knowledge is limitless. To drive the limited in pursuit of the limitless is fatal; and to presume that one really knows is fatal indeed.

 

Accumulating knowledge ... facts, information, details ... does seem to be driving the limited in pursuit of the limitless. How much is enough?

 

As a young person in school, I hated having to commit facts to memory ... feeling that if I knew where or how to find the facts, then when I actually had need of them I could find them and that would be enough. 

 

Maybe it's better to look upon knowledge as a process.

[wandelaar]

29 minutes ago, OldDog said:

As a young person in school, I hated having to commit facts to memory ... feeling that if I knew where or how to find the facts, then when I actually had need of them I could find them and that would be enough.

 

That's enough for most things. Nobody is supposed to be a specialist in everything. But if you want to be a master in some subject you certainly must know a great many facts by heart, in that case it will not work to stop and search for more information at every turn you make.

[flowing hands]

3 hours ago, OldDog said:

Once again Flowing Hands has captured a chapter most poetically and interestingly.

 

I have been thinking a lot lately about the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. This chapter seems most appropriate to that inquiry.

 

Most commonly we consider knowledge to be that which is acquired by the senses and organized in the mind by means of discernment, reason and other cognitive processes. This type of knowledge tends to dominate our attention and being. What about other forms of knowledge?

 

Its not too far a leap to recognize phyical knowledge. Muscle memory, for example, is a type of physical knowledge. Certainly the body can learn to perform various actions autonomically. Perhaps this is a large part of what traditional taiji training does. Anyone that has trained in taiji has been, on occasion, surprised at how the body was able to respond seemingly without conscious direction.

 

But what about spiritual knowledge. Is it possible to know things outside of mental or physical processes?  How would such knowledge be acquired? And perhaps a more interesting question is; Can spiritual knowledge be emplyed consciously? I wonder. It would seem, at least to me,  that such knowledge is suggested in Flowing Hands translation. 

 

In silence and peace one can become enlightened.

No one can teach someone else how to become enlightened,

For it stems from within the heart.

Be at one with Heaven and Earth

and then you can become enlightened.

 

Certainly has a spiritual ring to it.

 

The second line cited says it cannot be taught ... but I wonder if that is really the case. Does not neidan practice, at least in part, teach how to quieten the heart-mind. If this is not teaching enlightenment then what is it? If nothing else, it sets up a state of receptiveness. Perhaps this chapter is pointing to such practice.

 

 

 

'Realisation' or enlightenment is a multi faceted process. Human realisation is very different to Immortal realisation. It is very difficult for one human to teach another the process, because it involve so much. But an Immortal can teach you and guide you to that state.

[dawei]

5 hours ago, flowing hands said:

 

'Realisation' or enlightenment is a multi faceted process. Human realisation is very different to Immortal realisation. It is very difficult for one human to teach another the process, because it involve so much. But an Immortal can teach you and guide you to that state.

 

That was very revealing in understanding your path.  Thanks for sharing. 

[OldDog]

On 10/15/2018 at 4:18 PM, wandelaar said:

Nobody is supposed to be a specialist in everything. But if you want to be a master in some subject you certainly must know a great many facts by heart,

 

True enough ... you can't specialize in everything. (Kinda brings to mind the Pointed Man from Nilsson's The Point, who had so many points that he really had so point at all ... specializing in everything is really having no specialty at all. Don't know why that came to mind. )

 

But I do take a bit of exception to knowing a great number of facts by heart.

 

First of all, even in a specialized discipline, thare are likely way more facts than can possibly be committed to memory ... and the commitment of facts to memory does not guarantee mastery, in and of itself. Seems to me that the really great masters have somehow transcended the mere facts of the discipline. They see through the facts to essense of the relationships between facts. At that point, they have elevated their understanding  and, more importantly, their ability to an artform. If this were not true, then anybody that learned the facts of mathematics and physics, for example, would be the equal of Einstein, Heisenberg or Hawking. Clearly, that is not a frequent occurrence.

 

But the key is in what you said ... by heart. What does it mean to learn the facts by heart? It must be more than being able to recognize and recall the facts. Is learning the facts by heart approaching the gateway to transcendence and mastery? What more is needed to pass through the gateway?

 

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by OldDog
Wrong word

[wandelaar]

Yes - I think that for becoming a master in some (theoretical) subject you first have to consciously and deliberately learn a great lot. So that's a necessary but not yet a sufficient condition. After you have learned the basics (which might still be a lot), you have to "forget" them. And by that I mean that all the basic knowledge you acquired has to sink into your unconscious so that you don't even realize that you are constantly and automatically using the basic knowledge you learned. But it is not the automatic application of basic knowledge alone that makes the scientific genius! The flashes of genius happen when the unconscious suddenly and without warning comes up with the inspirational idea that solves a difficult problem. That's where the miracles happen, in the unconscious. And for the rest it is lots of hard work to test and develop the flashes of inspiration.

[Marblehead]

4 hours ago, OldDog said:

Kinda brings to mind the Pointed Man from Nilsson's The Point, who had so many points that he really had so point at all

Thanks for that.  I had forgotten who did "The Point".  For some reason I kept thinking The Small Faces.

 

[OldDog]

3 hours ago, wandelaar said:

... you have to "forget" them ...

 

Yes, I get what you are saying. The facts have to be put away, as it were ... to make room in the working mind for other processes.

 

You know, my experience has been, that when working on a problem or an issue, the way to solution is to contine to gather information about the problem and eventually the solution intuitively appears. It comes, as you say, from an unconscious place. But they do come quite naturally ... and you can train for it.

 

This is reminding me of the discussion on DDJ chapter 48.

[wandelaar]

1 hour ago, OldDog said:

 ... and you can train for it.

 

How do you do that?

[OldDog]

Train for it?  Maybe " train for it" overstates the case. Not sure I can explain it in a way that will make sense but will give it a shot. What I am about to describe is quite personal ... and may not be verifiable in a scientific sense.

 

As I have stated elsewhere, I have long relied on my intuitive sense to help guide me. Once I noticed it was occurring, I took note of the feeling that accompanies the intuition, epiphany, spark of genius ... whatever you choose to call it ... and began to look for it elsewhere.

 

You will ask ... what does it feel like? Near as I can describe it is part astonishment, amazement, wonder and bit of excitement. If you have ever had such an unexpected moment that produced a reliable workable solution to a problem, then you probably know the feeling. Now, the feeling is not the intuition or insight itself. I've learned that it just accompanies it like its a physical/emotional reaction.

 

Over time ... comparing random occurences ... I found it was more common than I was always conscious of. Like I was dismissing the feeling as though it were irrelevant ... and I quit doing that and started taking a moment look at it ... how it arises ... what was I doing (or not doing) at the time. 

 

 

So, the training part. Well, once having learned to recognize the feeling, I began looking for it in trivial activities. Games, puzzles, etc. Anything where the solution depended on working the problem ... gathering information ... until the solution appeared. I figured that if I could learn to recognize the feeling more reliably and if intuition was indeed more common, then the product of the intuitive event might be more accessible and I would not be dismissing the product along with the feeling. Thowing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Aside from the practice with puzzles and such I found there were other things that helped with the process ... remaining calm, controlling conflicting mental processes, eliminating distractions ... all trainable things.

 

The only thing that remains is to carry the process over into less trivial situations ... more significant situations. Can such a process be called on on-demand? Not in the sense of a super-hero with super-powers ... like Shazam. Does it always produce an intuitive event ... no. But the process is productive enough to be b useful. More like having another tool in the toolbox. Does it get better with practice? I believe it does. After all how did people like Einstein Heisenberg or Hawking manage to come up with series of such amazing discoveries? 

 

So, now at the end of this long discussion you might say that what I describe is nothing special ... and you would probably be right. I believe everyone has this capacity. The key is learning to recognize what is going on at a detailed level and put it into a workable context ... and, of course, train for it.

 

Does any of this mske sense?

[wandelaar]

In my case intuitive solutions to problems almost always come when I am doing something unrelated to the problem and am no longer consciously thinking about it. Like a bolt from the blue! So recognizing those insights for what they are isn't that difficult. I don't have to train that. What I was wondering was whether you can train to have those kind of insights more often, and that was what I thought you were hinting at...

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by wandelaar

[OldDog]

Sadly, no ... else I would be a Master ... which I am clearly not.

 

But it was a fun discussion, anyway. 

[wandelaar]

Having (many) insights isn't enough: the elevator idea that lies at the basis of the general theory of relativity is simple enough (any high school student could have had that), but to work out the mathematics of the general theory of relativity necessitates the study of differential geometry (for curved space-time) and tensor calculus that even Einstein found difficult to learn. As the saying goes: "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."

[Taoist Texts]

4 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

out the mathematics of the general theory of relativity necessitates the study of differential geometry

thats bad news. the good news is that GOT is a Pseudoscience - Wikipedia

Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after

[wandelaar]

@ Taoist Texts

 

What is GOT ? Do you mean the general theory of relativity? If so we better start a special topic about that as we are getting very much off topic now...

[wandelaar]

New topic started:

 

[Marblehead]

I noticed.  I'm reading.  Nothing to say at the moment.

 

[OldDog]

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Having (many) insights isn't enough:

 

Agreed. I would never claim that insights are a substitute for additional effort. As I stated ... another tool in the tool box. It can often be the guide as to where one will apply effort to achieve a result. 

[OldDog]

Before going down the trail using the Relativity as the straw dog, I would offer comment on the definition of psuedoscience offered.

 

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. 

 

First of all, the definition sets up a line of argument that is bounded by the scientific method. Thus, arguments based on other methods are precluded.

 

Second, any other method of inquiry is only psuedoscience when it claims to be science and attempts to use the scientific method to justify its conclusions. Care must be taken here because an method which comes under the heading "scientific method" may also be valid under another approach.

 

Finally, it would be well to remember that scientific methods can be used to investigate a subject that is inherently or deliberately flawed or biased to begin with. And thus science can fail even if the method is seen as scientifically rigorous.

 

Probably the greatest mistake is to place the scientific method on an unassailable pedestal where it cannot be questioned. History is full of examples where the state of science was such that it supported a position that only later ... in light of improved science ... was proved to be otherwise.

 

Let the games begin.

[wandelaar]

The game has been transported to the newly created topic. And as far as I'm concerned the game has already been finished there as well. See the other topic to see what happened.

 

As to the value of science in general, that deserves still another topic. But you will have to start it yourself. My motivation to talk about science on The Dao Bums has been steadily declining ...

 

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by wandelaar

[Marblehead]

3 hours ago, wandelaar said:

My motivation to talk about science on The Dao Bums has been steadily declining ...

It would be more fun if Brian were still posting.