Why I'm not a Taoist

Originally Posted by ayar415

This sounds pompous. Allowing your seeking to bear fruit?
So, you've got your cookie, and stepping aside to let me get the cookie, with my name on it. If I can find the cookie jar.
Truth, that is personal, is like a bespoke suit replete with monogram (HRH Ayar); unique and made for only me.

Ayar415,

What you characterize as pompous I see as being humble. IMO it is pompous to assume that you are the one that possesses truth. The ego compels one to assault others with your truth. I think people are better served by being allowed to discover their own truth. What you received by gnosis when shared with others at best becomes episteme.

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

QUOTE 46 EXCERPT:
Yes! When that koan "invokes an awareness, that feeling of having 'grasped it' " (the AHA moment), that's the point at which to stop. Amen.

And then what?

Let say I read all 81 Chapters and I grasped it all. I stop, put the Tao Te Ching in the trash can like an empty Chinese take out container after I had grasped its content and eaten it.

[Miss Hepburn]

Definition of episteme: knowledge specifically, intellectually certain knowledge

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Definition of episteme: knowledge specifically, intellectually certain knowledge

As opposed to gnosis which is spiritually derived rather than intellectually.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by ayar415

And then what?

Let say I read all 81 Chapters and I grasped it all. I stop, put the Tao Te Ching in the trash can like an empty Chinese take out container after I had grasped its content and eaten it.

At that point ...(to quote Tao):

13: Know the universe as your self, and
you can live absolutely anywhere in comfort.

35: Stay centered in the Tao and the world
comes to you.

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Definition of episteme: knowledge specifically, intellectually certain knowledge

What constitutes certain knowledge? Each society has its regime of truth. By extension, Molearner is saying each person has his/her regime of truth. If that is so, his truth is no different from opinion. And here we have Still Waters climbing up the Tao stairway to the stars with his aha's.

In a discussion, a Buddhist scholar once told me that "There is only one truth! No second!" Truth is not opinion! That is an outright rejection of Molearner's stance.

What do you say, Miss Hepburn?

Originally Posted by ayar415

What constitutes certain knowledge? Each society has its regime of truth. By extension, Molearner is saying each person has his/her regime of truth. If that is so, his truth is no different from opinion. And here we have Still Waters climbing up the Tao stairway to the stars with his aha's.

In a discussion, a Buddhist scholar once told me that "There is only one truth! No second!" Truth is not opinion! That is an outright rejection of Molearner's stance.

What do you say, Miss Hepburn?

Ayar415,

You seem a little confused. I recognize gnosis as truth. Basically opinion is doxa. Episteme is simply the standard for the scientific world. Science is not the ultimate arbiter for me.

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by Molearner

Ayar415,

You seem a little confused. I recognize gnosis as truth. Basically opinion is doxa. Episteme is simply the standard for the scientific world. Science is not the ultimate arbiter for me.

What appears as confusion is one conversation across two paradigms. Your worldview is not the same as mine and that is why what I said doesn't jive with you. Let me explain.

When you came in, Still Waters was engaged with me on the Tao Te Ching. His perception was guided by the English translation. He asked, and I corrected the translation as much as I could to direct his view closer to the Chinese text. I requested him to tell me what he had gotten out of it but he would not say.

The whole point to reading the Tao Te Ching, to me, is to correct error in perception - if any - and this happens instantaneously when there is a paradigm shift in consciousness bringing about a new way of seeing the world differently. The point is, your mind is not configured like mine is and, though we both use the same English language, the message you get from me is confusing to you. However, what you say is not confusing to me because I know where you are coming from. I can understand you.

Gnosis refers to knowledge based on personal experience or perception. In a religious context, gnosis is mystical or esoteric knowledge. (Wikipedia)

And you said: "What you received by gnosis when shared with others at best becomes episteme." And you think the Tao Te Ching in Chapter 56 ("Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know.") is saying what you stated below?

"The one that does not talk loves you more than you can understand…..he is allowing your seeking to bear fruit….truth in its purest form must be personal….everything else is just knowledge " (Molearner)

If you are correct, then humanity must be splintered into individual human digits, each going through the gnostic mill, one by one, to become spiritually enlightened alone or be forever condemned to live in mortal darkness. This is so sad, and I categorically reject this as what the Tao Te Ching is about.

Acquisition of human learning and our amazing technological achievements, in the material world, are essentially cooperative. And I believe that our salvation through spiritual enlightenment about the painful, fractured human condition can only be attained together as one indivisible holistic movement.

And you can take this to the bank.

[django]

I think gnosis is the only way because the ‘true’ way doesn’t yet exist, so we can follow any method we can find but it isn’t the best way. As far as I’m concerned you’re better off following no way and not starting than following a known way and heading in the wrong direction. Following gnosis at least I still have a chance of finding the best way.

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by django

Following gnosis at least I still have a chance of finding the best way.

Gnosis is just a term for experiential knowledge in contrast to theoretical knowledge (epistemology). This simply means that one has to climb the mountain to experience (gnosis) what it is like to be at the summit.

Sir Edmund Hilary climbs Mount Everest. He has direct experience (gnosis), he knows, and he talks about it to those who have not done so and do not know. Those others, who listen to him, acquire "theoretical knowledge" that enables them to climb Everest and experience it for themselves. This is the way humanity intelligently evolves. The first experiencer blazes the trail for those who come after.

The lone climber who shuts his mouth, and tells others to go blindly up the treacherous mountain because that's the only way they must do it, is a selfish bloke. Either that, or he doesn't know squat.

Gnosis is direct experience and it happens whenever there is a breakthrough in scientific research. The one with the gnosis writes up the research paper and submits it for peer review. The peers acquire the theoretical knowledge (episteme), evaluate and test it for validity. If it is true, then all humanity gets to experience it directly.

We need to wise up or we will never make any progress in the spiritual field. He who knows does not talk makes no sense. Is this nonsense what the Tao Te Ching expounds? Why bother to write it then?