ch 71

[FallingLeaves]

these guys were awesome! here is my take on this one.

Knowing vs lack of knowing
It is better, lack of knowing
Knowing is a disease.

In the end only when the disease is sick
Appropriate lack of the disease happens.
Sages lack the disease
It happened the disease was sick.

In the appropriate way, lack of the disease happens.

[virtue121]

I do not think that ignorance is better than knowing. Our true nature is omniscient/all knowing.

[markings]

I do not think that ignorance is better than knowing. Our true nature is omniscient/all knowing.
And our way of knowing, storing and analyzing everything (to death) with our mind, basing everything on what we think we already know i.e. memory, that is exactly the disease that obscures our true nature.

The not knowing talked about is not about worldly knowledge but spiritual 'knowledge', traditions and theories. The sage discards it all and is happy not to know anything.

[inavalan]

there are the four possible cases, progressively better:

to not know that you don't know - the worst
to know that you don't know
to not know that you know
to know that you know - the best

[markings]

there are the four possible cases, progressively better:

to not know that you don't know - the worst
to know that you don't know
to not know that you know
to know that you know - the best
Once more this applies to worldly knowledge.
As far as spiritual knowledge goes the stages, best to worst must be reversed.

Only "not to know that you don't know" leaves one free to respond in an natural manner, free from mind interference.

[inavalan]

Once more this applies to worldly knowledge.
As far as spiritual knowledge goes the stages, best to worst must be reversed.

Only "not to know that you don't know" leaves one free to respond in an natural manner, free from mind interference.

So, you believe that ignorance is bliss ...

Different people use same words with different meanings. For me "natural response" doesn't mean something desirable. Also, for me, "mind" is the inner counterpart of the brain, so, I find it desirable for "mind" to interfere.

It's easy to misunderstand each other.

"A mind is a psychic pattern through which you interpret and form reality." - Seth, Session 763, Page 41

[markings]

So, you believe that ignorance is bliss ...

Different people use same words with different meanings. For me "natural response" doesn't mean something desirable. Also, for me, "mind" is the inner counterpart of the brain, so, I find it desirable for "mind" to interfere.

It's easy to misunderstand each other.

"A mind is a psychic pattern through which you interpret and form reality." - Seth, Session 763, Page 41
IMO the "natural response" refers to the most appropriate and effective response in a situation.
Spiritually this arise when there is a response to an uninterpreted and pattern free answer or reaction to something.

[markings]

To expand a little, R.D. Laing in 'The Divided Self' writes that we are 'crazed people', brought to this state by our upbringing. Many psychologists would in one way or another agree to this to some extent.

inavalan, are you saying that this is the state from where we make the best decisions?

Spirituality aims to act from a point before interpretation, the state of pure perception, the true natural state, and not 'interpreted perception' which is already corrupted and distorted by our history and culture.

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

i'm finding myself in agreement with particular notes from each of the several
contributors to this thread, and in disagreement with others. i'd like to see the
discussion progress into a harmonic whole, and not devolve into chaos.

providing a "definition of terms", as they come into use, may help...
but i also have a sense that "Truth" is "unquantifiable" [impossible to express or measure in terms of quantity...
immeasurable according to standards beyond itself], so that may be a trap to avoid falling into.
perhaps just "speaking one's truth", which as much authenticity as is possible will suffice?
[and respecting that another 'instrument' in the orchestra may strike different tones.]

[markings]

Let's start with the definition of truth. There is no such think as personal truth. There is perception, opinion, notions, feelings, urges which are all personal but none can and should be elevated to the level of truth in any sense. To use truth for one's personal experience is to devalue it. That my experience is true does not make it "a truth". The difference is in the longevity of what is described. It may be true that right now I am angry. The truth may be that 5 seconds ago I was angry, but that anger of a while back is not "a truth" because it does not and cannot stand on its own.

There is only the Truth, and it is that which never changes. If it changes it is not Truth.

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

Let's start with the definition of truth. There is no such think as personal truth. There is perception, opinion, notions, feelings, urges which are all personal but none can and should be elevated to the level of truth in any sense. To use truth for one's personal experience is to devalue it. That my experience is true does not make it "a truth". The difference is in the longevity of what is described. It may be true that right now I am angry. The truth may be that 5 seconds ago I was angry, but that anger of a while back is not "a truth" because it does not and cannot stand on its own.

There is only the Truth, and it is that which never changes. If it changes it is not Truth.
my sense of it is different. i intuitively believe that "Truth" is unchanging,
and i can reason to such a conclusion as well, and i agree with you on that
point. however, i figure that people can have "personal truths" (small-t),
and that we'd ought to elevate them to Truth (within our own being),
in order to ascertain their validity for us. i'm imagining that "Truth" exists
within each of us, and that it provides the light by which we might see how
other ideas have value for us.

i'm probably 'out of my depth' to have entered into this discussion anyways,
(sorry,) since i'm unfamiliar with the quote which opened the thread, and i'm
thinking that the thoughts expressed there are somewhat 'worrisome'.
although i'm rather pleased to consider myself an "anti-intellectual", i don't
consider knowledge to be undesirable, nor a disease... i'd need to redefine
some words in order to get there.

[FallingLeaves]

So, you believe that ignorance is bliss ...

Different people use same words with different meanings. For me "natural response" doesn't mean something desirable. Also, for me, "mind" is the inner counterpart of the brain, so, I find it desirable for "mind" to interfere.

It's easy to misunderstand each other.

"A mind is a psychic pattern through which you interpret and form reality." - Seth, Session 763, Page 41

it isn't so much that ignorance is bliss... it is that there is another way to know things beyond the one people know about and agree to. (actually I'm given to understand there are several but this is a taoist discussion so there is a single specific context). But seemingly, going along the lines of what people know and agree to is like putting blinders on and not being able to see/learn about this other way of knowing. The sages take one kind of blinders off (the insistence that knowledge in the way people go about it is itself a good thing and desirable to have) and find themselves in a position to see something else entirely.

So it isn't so much a matter of throwing out life, as finding a new way of life. Although in some ways you have to do the one, to find the other.

As far as mind interfering... when your mind has been set against itself and there is constant fights between one idea and another, you eventually begin to get very tired and eventually decide you don't want your mind interfering. But if you are one of the lucky ones, who hasn't been saddled with that, you might not care either way, or you might like it since you don't have to deal with the intensity of always being 'on'.

So yes I agree we are all on very different pages...

[ketzer]

there are the four possible cases, progressively better:

to not know that you don't know - the worst
to know that you don't know
to not know that you know
to know that you know - the best

perhaps one step worse might be
to know that which is not

Then again I have overlooked much and wasted countless hours all because
I knew that which was not that really was

It's true, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.... even if it is true.

[ketzer]

these guys were awesome! here is my take on this one.

Knowing vs lack of knowing
It is better, lack of knowing
Knowing is a disease.

In the end only when the disease is sick
Appropriate lack of the disease happens.
Sages lack the disease
It happened the disease was sick.

In the appropriate way, lack of the disease happens.


The problem with knowing something is that it often gets in the way of knowing other things. It's like an uncarved block of wood. As soon as you put the knife to it and start carving, as each shaving is removed, what it can be carved into becomes more and more limited.

Too often we like to use our knowledge to point out the speck in the eyes of others, not realizing that our knowledge may be a beam in our own eye.

Perhaps it is better to just be aware of things, not being to quick to know them as truths. That way we we do not blind ourselves to what may be the equivalent truth of their opposites.

"The opposite of every truth is just as true." - Siddhartha, Hermann Hesse

“The opposite of a fact is a falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.” – Niels Bohr

[ImthatIm]

If your saying your happy not knowing, that's cool.

I think that when you react to situations, you can either react from past experience or flow in the now and "know" what needs done that achieves a balanced outcome.

But then again you can except what is "is" and be aware and observe and let it be what it is and do not judge it.

[markings]

If your saying your happy not knowing, that's cool.

The Dao De Ching is a spiritual text not a worldly one. It doesn't refer to worldly knowledge. To apply worldly ideas and ideas to spiritual concepts is just plain wrong, useless, misleading, giving wrong results.

Worldly aspects must be evaluated with worldly means, resulting in knowing as it is commonly understood. Spiritual aspects must be approached in a spiritual way which often results in unknowing. This is an unknowing of a different kind to worldly ignorance which every person, including spiritual ones, would consider to be a handicap for living.

[ImthatIm]

Markings

Is that so?

If your beyond this world,then no need of worldly things.

To truly know nothing is to do nothing and vanish, so were are the true sages? "vanished" But we are talking knowing that one does not know. Dis-ease by knowing.

The Dao can't be explained with words.So any words here are meaningless.

[markings]

Markings

Is that so?

If your beyond this world,then no need of worldly things.

To truly know nothing is to do nothing and vanish, so were are the true sages? "vanished" But we are talking knowing that one does not know. Dis-ease by knowing.

The Dao can't be explained with words.So any words here are meaningless.
Nagarjuna said:

"All Buddhas depend on two truths
In order to preach the Dharma to sentient beings.
The first is the worldly mundane truth.
The second is the truth of supreme meaning.

If one is not able to know
The distinction between the two truths,
One cannot know the true meaning
Of the profound Buddha Dharma."

Rare are the people who understand this, even rarer are those who study this, let alone those who teach this.

This is the sad state of spirituality today.

[ketzer]

The paper is not the story.
The letters are not the story.
The words are not the story.
The events are not the story.
The characters are not the story.
The book is not the story.
Yet, the only way to get the story is to read the book.
Once you have read the book, you can give it away and keep the story.

[ImthatIm]

markings
Rare are the people who understand this, even rarer are those who study this, let alone those who teach this.

This is the sad state of spirituality today.

I knew I did not know what I was talking about.

I am glad you knew what I was talking about.

Here is what I was referring to.

ch.71
知不知，上；
不知知，病。
夫惟病病，
是以不病。
聖人不病，
以其病病，
是以不病。
And it's many interpretations which are vast. And some say you should look at ch.70 also.
The Daoists never separated nature from spirit, consciously preserving the instinctive knowledge that life is One, so not one thing can be separated from the Dao. All things know it and all things teach it, yet not one can understand it, the Dao.