Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
A wise old man once told me...
[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.
I'm always linking to this chapter - I love it. Well, I suppose I love 'em all... except maybe a few. But that may change after I decipher the original. The original for this chapter offers a slightly different emphasis. First, the literal and [chref=81]not beautiful[/chref] (in English anyway) version:
know not know higher, not know know disease.
man only disease disease, is in order to not disease.
sacred man not disease, takes his disease disease.
man only disease disease, is in order to not disease.
Notice, the original uses 'bing', which translates to: ill; sick; disease; fault; defect. Of course, disease often gives us difficulty, but still, disease (fault, defect, sickness, etc.) feels more serious in my view. So, it may be more straightforward to say, Not to know yet to think that one knows is a disease... or a defect, an evolutionary defect perhaps. Human difficulty has ancient origins. I've always liked how Genesis explains the origin of human difficulty. It parallels, albeit bombastically, our Taoist view, not to know yet to think that one knows is a disease (which will lead to difficulty).
Genesis 2: "...Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 3: "...he took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
Of course, I would change "they knew they were naked" to "thought they knew they were naked".
* * *
Now, let's see if I can polish the original's grammar a little:
Know you don't know is higher, Not know is disease.
Only treat disease as disease in order to not disease.
Sacred person is not disease for he takes his disease as disease
Only treat disease as disease in order to not disease.
Personally, I've found that the deeper I know and accept this defect, the better I can treat the disease. By treating this defect as a disease, the defect loses much of its dis-ease causing potency. This remind me of chapter 60's [chref=60]Or rather, it is not that they lose their potencies, But that, though they have their potencies, do not harm the people[/chref]. When we know we are blind, we walk more [chref=15]tentatively[/chref] and so stub our toes less often.
I'm always linking to this chapter - I love it. Well, I suppose I love 'em all... except maybe a few. But that may change after I decipher the original. The original for this chapter offers a slightly different emphasis. First, the literal and [chref=81]not beautiful[/chref] (in English anyway) version:
know not know higher, not know know disease.
man only disease disease, is in order to not disease.
sacred man not disease, takes his disease disease.
man only disease disease, is in order to not disease.
Notice, the original uses 'bing', which translates to: ill; sick; disease; fault; defect. Of course, disease often gives us difficulty, but still, disease (fault, defect, sickness, etc.) feels more serious in my view. So, it may be more straightforward to say, Not to know yet to think that one knows is a disease... or a defect, an evolutionary defect perhaps. Human difficulty has ancient origins. I've always liked how Genesis explains the origin of human difficulty. It parallels, albeit bombastically, our Taoist view, not to know yet to think that one knows is a disease (which will lead to difficulty).
Genesis 2: "...Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 3: "...he took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
Of course, I would change "they knew they were naked" to "thought they knew they were naked".
* * *
Now, let's see if I can polish the original's grammar a little:
Know you don't know is higher, Not know is disease.
Only treat disease as disease in order to not disease.
Sacred person is not disease for he takes his disease as disease
Only treat disease as disease in order to not disease.
Personally, I've found that the deeper I know and accept this defect, the better I can treat the disease. By treating this defect as a disease, the defect loses much of its dis-ease causing potency. This remind me of chapter 60's [chref=60]Or rather, it is not that they lose their potencies, But that, though they have their potencies, do not harm the people[/chref]. When we know we are blind, we walk more [chref=15]tentatively[/chref] and so stub our toes less often.
Comments
Beauty is skin deep = male, yang, sun, heat, full, life, mountain, more, strength, movement,...
Ugly is bone deep = female, yin, moon, cold, empty, death, valley, less, weakness, stillness,...
My my, it looks like Taoists are really into the ugly side.
No wonder they say [chref=2]The whole world recognizes the beautiful as the beautiful, yet this is only the ugly; the whole world recognizes the good as the good, yet this is only the bad. [/chref]
If so, I can seriously relax! 8)
The saying I heard was: Yo Mama's so ugly, when she entered the ugly contest, the judges said, "sorry, no proffesionals!"
Go figure. :?
dumb=slow, stupid, dull, lower,...
smart=quick, clever, bright, higher,...
So, how about...
[chref=3]Therefore in governing the people, the sage empties their minds but fills their bellies, weakens their (purpose) wills but strengthens their bones. He always keeps them innocent of knowledge and free from desire, and ensures that the clever never dare to act[/chref]
At first glance this appear to talk about what 'he' should do vis-a-vis 'them'. In fact, 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander'. The 'sage' is within each of us. The task of 'governing' our own life is made simpler if we apply this advice to ourselves. For example, 'free from desire' is simply [chref=64]the sage desires not to desire[/chref]. 'Innocent of knowledge' parallels [chref=71]to know yet to think that one does not know is best[/chref], and so on.
Now of course in the natural world, dumb=smart, stupid=clever, or to paraphrase chapter 2, [chref=2]The whole world recognizes the smart as the smart, yet this is only the dumb...[/chref]. The only true distinction between these words, dumb and smart, is that which takes place in the imagination happening between our ears. The challenge for humanity lies in seeing the world as it is, not as we think it is. The Taoist point of view helps [chref=56]soften the glare[/chref].
I say the world is however I say it is for me. Meaning that whatever I tell myself about the world is how it occurs for me no matter what.
It can be like self-fulfilling prophecy. For instance, I walk past someone and he makes a grimace. I might think he is troubled or I might think that he disapproves of me. How I think the world is will determine my conclusion and my reaction to it. Maybe he really does disapprove of me but I think he is troubled and I show some concern or compassion for his suffering and suddenly I am not such a bad guy in his eyes.
I don't think this is the only force acting on me and the world but it is interesting to consider.
Thus, as millennia of human history demonstrates, [chref=71]thinking that one knows will lead to difficulty[/chref]. I suppose seeing ourselves, our 'beliefs', as simply an arbitrary result of our biology deeply threatens our 'ego'. That's what makes "seeing the world as it is, not as we think it is" such a monumental challenge.
When I say "seeing the world as it is", I mean "see" it as a reflection of who we are, not of what 'it' actually is. When we begin to do that, we can't help but become more [chref=15]tentative, hesitant, murky[/chref], etc., which is the last thing we usually want to feel, biologically speaking. :?
1) doesn't "not to desire" create "desire"? Maybe what this is saying is that it is human to desire but to be aware that desire can bring trouble.
2) I like this philosophy. I am an expressive / intuitive anyway, so I say, "the facts are irrelevant". I actually don't think I want to know the truth, if there is one, because it would take all the fun out of life and the discovery of it.
But in my job, knowing is important so I pretend to know what I think they want me to know. I have all the reasonable answers figured out (or how to come up with them). And I am ready with them whenever some fun spoiling schmuck comes around asking. This is how money is made. Customers don't want to hear, "Well, lets try this and see what happens." Unfortunately, I'd be having a lot more fun if that were acceptable.
1) [chref=78]Straightforward words, seem paradoxical.[/chref] Desire is 'need' as it emerges from the other side of thought (language). Rooted in instinct, desire will express itself regardless. Directing desire back on itself in this way helps us [chref=56]untangle the knots and soften the glare[/chref] which language fosters. This results in being more present 'now'.
2) Even if the truth could not [chref=1]be named or spoken of[/chref]? Even if the discover of 'it' was never something that could be discover-ed? Even if you could only know it spontaneously in the moment of knowing? As soon as it was 'discover-ed' - where you [chref=71]think that you know[/chref] - it would be lost?
3) Perhaps this is an example of [chref=65]hoodwinking[/chref]?
1) I think of the truth that cannot be named is like how hard it is to explain certain things that I have found to work for me in my life.
2) I am not sure that is the truth. I don't think there is a truth as we think of truth as humans, and that is the truth I am not interested in. I still have to deal with it because I was raised with a certain "truth" and it still affects my thinking.
I do think that the world works in a certain way and that we as humans work in a certain way. Learning what that is and how to work with it to have the kind of life I want is my pursuit. Is that the truth? Maybe not for you but for me it is.
I don't expect you to do it my way. There is no "The Way" as far as I can see. There is only a way and a way and a way and... Each way leads you somewhere. You will take the way that you have chosen or the way that you fall into having not chosen.
I am only discussing my way and looking for what I can steal from your way that I can make a part of my way (if it gets me what I want).
I am not trying to convince or be convinced. I am not looking for the "right" way nor the "truth". I am creating "my way" through life. Some of that is picking ground to stand on and also looking where others stand to see how that works and if it might work for me.
I bet everyone on the planet is looking for a way to "work with..." life as it is in order "to have the kind of life I want." All I want is to have what I want and not get what I don't want. Of course, we know that's not gonna happen; people die, bosses fire you, pets run away, your house burns down, there's an earthquake. you marry the wrong person.
The Buddha pinpointed the cause of all this misery: "the cause of suffering is desire." The way to let go of desire is to let go of your concept of self.
But Carl said it all on this site already: http://www.centertao.org/buddha.php
What I understand you saying, Topher, is that through carefully editing your thoughts/lanaguage, you can change how you perceive the world to be and thereby reach contentment. It's similar to the Buddha's 8-fold Path, don't you think?