Chapter of the Week: #56 [Archive]

Carl

[cite] Topher:[/cite]I think anyone that doesn't use language to its fullest, that doesn't seek to master its potential and its pitfalls, is missing a great pleasure and a great opportunity of being alive.

Human history suggests that we are far more likely to "seek to master its potential" than face "its pitfalls". Humanity's bias is definitely 'pro-language'. Nevertheless, my intent is not to debate the pros and cons of language - really! Debating pros and cons is like discussing which political party is best. There are good and bad apples on both sides. The pros and cons of language probably [chref=2]offset[/chref] each other. I'm after full disclosure of the "pitfalls".

Language, like a knife, is a superb tool. But, like a knife, cuts both ways. Unlike a knife, 'the pen is mightier than the sword'. The trouble is, we aren't aware of the danger. Language 'owns' our mind - it is the foundation upon which much of our awareness sits. It is like we are sitting on our 'mighty sword'... ouch.

Being more circumspect in our relationship with language might help us avoid falling on our 'sword'. My advice is to trust language like you would a pet cobra - trust, but verify. Is it where it belongs, or is it running loose? Language is dangerous. Thus, [chref=32]as soon as there are names, one ought to know that it is time to stop.[/chref] Stop trusting perhaps?

Language is a linear process. We proceed from baby babble to [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref] (language's axiomatic foundation), to Shakespear and beyond. On the other hand, Taoist thought (and the like) is a circular process receding from language backward, dropping the axiomatic authority of names and words (and popping preconceptions if we can). This helps us, however briefly, [chref=28]again return to being a babe[/chref] - our original 'self'. :P

Carl

Each week we address one chapter of the Tao Te Ching. The Tao Te Ching can be obscure, especially if you think you're supposed to understand what it's saying! We find it easier and more instructive to simply contemplate how the chapter resonates with your personal experience. Becoming more aware at this fundamental level simplifies life. This approach conforms to the view that true knowing lies within ourselves. Thus, when a passage in the scripture resonates, you've found your inner truth. The same applies for when it evokes a question; questions are the grist for self realization.

Chapter 56
One who knows does not speak; one who speaks does not know.

Block the openings;
Shut the doors.
Blunt the sharpness;
Untangle the knots;
Soften the glare;
Let your wheels move only along old ruts.

This is known as mysterious sameness.

Hence you cannot get close to it, nor can you keep it at arm's length; you
cannot bestow benefit upon it, nor can you do harm to it; you cannot ennoble it,
nor can you debase it.

Therefore it is valued by the empire.

Read commentary previously posted for this chapter.

Carl

[Note: I italicize phrases I borrow from the chapter, and link to phrases I borrow from other chapters to help tie chapters together. While making it more tedious to read, :? the Tao Te Ching is best pondered in the context of the whole.

Compare the original terse Chinese, 'knowing not say', with One who knows does not speak. This embellishment, which translates the terse into [chref=81]beautiful and persuasive words[/chref], comes at a cost. This 'One who knows does not speak; one who speaks does not know' conveys a feeling of permanency. It can sounds like, 'If one knows, one will never speak' and 'if one speaks, one never knows'. This pulls us away from 'now' into 'ever' and 'never'. Back to 'now'...

When we're speaking (thinking or writing) we can't feel depth of [chref=10]knowing[/chref]. Our 'forebrain' is making too much noise, i.e., opening the doors, honing the sharpness; increasing the glare. All we can really do is attempt to remember what we 'knew' in [chref=5]silence[/chref]. Conversely, in the moments we [chref=47]know[/chref], we are unable to say. The thinking and speaking mind is like a light switch, when it's turned off we 'see' better; when it's turned on we are blinded by the glare. Oh, and it is desire's emotional energy that powers this light. The more energy, the brighter the glare.

The larger view of this chapter may be how our emotional agendas take us over hill and dale leaving old ruts behind. Intoxicated with emotional preferences, we sharpen distinctions and lose any sense of [chref=16]impartiality[/chref]. The notion of mysterious sameness is enough to make us [chref=41]laugh out loud[/chref] - I mean, what is the mysterious sameness between benefit and harm, [chref=2]beautiful [and] ugly[/chref] or Jesus and Hitler, to name a few.

Pulled by a need to [chref=7]accomplish our private ends[/chref], our likes, dislikes, needs and fears, drive us to either get close to it, or keep it at arm's length; bestow benefit upon it, or do harm to it; ennoble it, or debase it. 'It',... what is 'it'? Well, you name it! Alas, the means don't brings us to the private ends we seek.

Letting my wheels move only along old ruts feels like [chref=8]settling where none would like to be[/chref]. Mysterious sameness is not stimulating; we crave stimulation - especially in youth. Sure the 'child' (Haizi) in me still enjoys that stimulation, but the 'father' (Laozi) in me would never trade the old rut for those exciting [chref=53]by-paths[/chref] of youth. Not that I have a choice. It is just that if I could, I wouldn't go back. Furthermore, in my youth, I would never have chosen to let my wheels move only along old ruts. Sure, the idea might have sounded 'cool', 'enlightened', 'spiritual', but I would have just been bored to death! All [chref=25]is naturally so[/chref], whether we like it or not. Ha!