Why I'm not a Taoist

[Molearner]

AbodhiSky,

The first paragraph, as you articulated, makes sense of your take on it…..thanks. It is a little more difficult for me to unravel the second paragraph….to the point I cannot do you justice to comment on it.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by ayar415

But you won't get there if there is motive of greed for spiritual enlightenment. You have got to clean up your act for its own sake.

So, you and Still Waters had better watch it. Forget the eternal Tao, and be like the dust underfoot (humility) and cut the glare (dazzle of those who know).

Ayar415,

The greed for spiritual enlightenment basically closes the door for advancement….for that would be a program of the ego. The glare is but a clanging cymbal (re Bible) and that only serves to put me on guard. If one was actually humble he would refrain from making threats….that presupposes that you are qualified for judgement.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Those who know don't talk.
Those who talk don't know.

I am slowly (in my own mind) starting to understand where you are coming from.

Unfortunately, it seems - you did not have a personal relationship with that individual, who showed you what “silent communication” is all about.
Had you had that, you would have noticed that communication can have 2 entirely different dimensions – all at the same time.

*

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

well the TTC speaks much truth, but isn't the answer to everything.

No the words are not the answer to everything. They are just words that people wrote down, and then it was translated by another random person, who wrote it down differently, and then it was translated after that again, by one who wrote it down differently as well, and then by another, and another and another and another, and another and another and another.

Originally Posted by Molearner

the second paragraph….to the point I cannot do you justice to comment on it.

i totally changed my mind about what i wrote

[sky]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

i totally changed my mind about what i wrote

Sometimes by reading the whole Teaching the wording makes sense.

[Still_Waters]

Quote 93 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by sentient

Unfortunately, it seems - you did not have a personal relationship with that individual, who showed you what “silent communication” is all about.
Had you had that, you would have noticed that communication can have 2 entirely different dimensions – all at the same time.

In "silent communication", one can know intuitively all that is important to know relevant to the interaction. I discovered this over 50 years ago when I met my first really memorable mentor (a black "homeless" sage on the streets of NYC). We had a 9-year-personal relationship during which he would mysteriously "appear" whenever I needed guidance. When he revealed himself after 2 years of apparently "coincidental" encounters, we had very intense conversations as he knew me like the proverbial "open book", including things that I never shared with him verbally.

I believe that it was Ramana Maharshi who said that, in silence, one can learn more about a person than if one had had interactions spanning many years. This is true.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 81 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

krishnamurti titled that one book of his, "the awakening of intelligence"
which would be a different opposite way to express the meaning of
"go beyond intellect." K seems to be saying, bring in intellect!

It's interesting that you should introduce Krishnamurti to this thread along with his book, "the Awakening of Intelligence", which I just recommended to a friend. That was a very important book for me at one time but I moved on from him years ago even though I do watch videos of his dialogues occasionally even now.

I was just thinking about your point regarding "K seems to be saying, bring in intellect". Perhaps that is why he appealed to me initially as he does use intellect and rationality in his dialogues and I was a Phi Beta Kappa who once took great pride in my intellect (ego ego ego ego ). This past Wednesday, June 30th, I even participated in a zoom meeting with a Krishnamurti "dialogue group" for the first time (and last time) to see how the "dialogue" approach would work WITHOUT some one at the level of a Krishnamurti. It was a very forgettable 2 1/2 hours before I left as did almost half of the initial participants. It was very very intellectual.

Having said that, I agree that intellect is indeed important but only up to a certain point. Intellect is needed to realize that one must eventually transcend the little separatist intellect. One of my Sufi teachers, Pir Vilayat Khan (son of the awesome Hazrat Inayat Khan) once said: "The ego is very important...until one no longer needs it." Similarly, I would paraphrase that by saying that "The intellect is very important... until one no longer needs it" and one passes through the mystical Christian "Cloud of Unknowing". As I've mentioned before, it took some very powerful interventions by my primary spiritual mentor to shake me free of my intellectual inclinations and past the "Cloud of Unknowing".

I now intend to look again at my "Awakening of Intellect" book to see my comments and handwritten notes, but I suspect that the comments in your post are right on target.

EDIT: I just looked at my first note regarding the Krishnamurti book in reference to page 156: "To watch, you need a very quiet mind. That is meditation. The whole of that is meditation." Also, on page 257, he says: "Why can't I just look... Why does thought come into it?" I think that your point is very valid but I also think that Krishnamurti begins with the use of intellect and thought to point the masses beyond thought into the Silence. Any further comments by you would be most welcome.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 84 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

The Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn just opened his mouth to express that.
Is he mistaken?

Of course he is mistaken. If you read further into Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn, he readily concedes that he is most assuredly mistaken in speaking that ... but that it is a mistake that he is willing to make for the benefit of the seeker.

The Zen masters of the Tang Dynasty (See the "Gateless Gate" and the "Blue Cliff Records") would similarly acknowledge a "mistake" but they similarly point out that it is a "mistake" that they are willing to make.

P.S. This is not "hypocrisy".

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 84 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

what if they are using their intellect to assert it is beyond the intellect?

WOW ! Before reading this post, I responded to a previous post of yours and said virtually the same thing. WOW !