It's wrong to say "those who know, say not." There, I said it.

I really liked my response to something a commenter on a recent post said.

This isn't terribly surprising, since I usually like what I say. After all, there's not much point to saying stuff that makes me feel "I shouldn't have said that." Occasionally that happens. Usually, though, what I say is something I want to say.

So like most people, I've got no problem with saying. There's a time to say. And a time not to say. Thus I replied to the commenter this way:

david r, how can you be sure that "Those who know, say not. Those that say, know not. This is what experiencing God in reality is all about."

I assume you got that idea from somewhere. It isn't original. The Tao Te Ching says something very similar. So someone said "those who know, don't say." Yet they said that. I guess we shouldn't believe them, since if they said it, this shows they don't know what God is all about.

I don't understand how "those who know" and "those who say" are related in the fashion you seem to believe in.

For example: dancing is something you do, something you experience, something that can't be described in words. I know this. I'm just an average dancer, but I've done a lot of ballroom dancing, in a lot of styles. I've seen a lot of excellent dancers much better than me.

And I've heard them say lots of things about how to dance. There isn't any conflict between them (1) knowing how to dance really well, and (2) being able how to talk about dancing, including instructing people in how to dance better.

Every dancer knows the difference between talking about dancing and dancing. I assume you believe that every God-seeker knows the difference between talking about knowing God and knowing God. Why is it that you believe you can't do both?

Not at the same time. At different times.

Again, this is not an astounding idea. Every dancer, like every skier or every skateboarder, knows that you can't talk and think about what you're doing while you're doing it -- if you want to really do it. Doing requires an immersion in the activity that talking and thinking interfere with.

But this is the case with every activity.

So why is knowing God any different? Why can't someone have an experience of knowing God, and then later talk as best he/she can about that experience? Everyone knows the difference between direct experience and talking about experiences. Again, dancers sure do. Skateboarders sure do.

So what reason do you have for believing that only when it comes to God, is it impossible to both experience God and later say something about that experience?

I wasn't implying that it is truly possible to experience God.

Maybe it is. More likely, it isn't. I was just arguing that if it is possible, I don't agree with the oft-heard assumption that anyone who says something about their experience didn't really come to know what God (or ultimate reality, for the nontheistic) is all about.

Picking up my well-worn copy of the Tao Te Ching translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English, I found that the first few lines speak about this saying/naming/knowing issue.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name. 

Okay. This is totally consistent with my point.

There's a difference between what we say about Tao or God, and what Tao or God is in itself. Pretty obvious, really.

Such is the case with everything. I can guarantee that no matter how many wonderful things someone says about me -- and feel free to do this -- the sum total of all those sayings won't add up to the feeling I have of being "me." 

After all, I know myself subjectively from the inside.

All the words that can be used to describe me are attempts to name discrete features of me that are evident from the outside. Another "philosophical translation" of the first lines of the Tao Te Ching by Roger Ames and David Hall seems to reflect this notion.

Way-making (dao) that can be put into words is not really way-making.
And naming (ming) that can assign fixed reference to things is not really naming. 

Interestingly, both translations make clear that the named and the nameless are essentially co-equal. 

These two [named and nameless] spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

These two -- the nameless and what is named -- emerge from the same source yet are referred to differently.
Together they are called obscure.
The obscurest of the obscure,
They are the swinging gateway of the manifold mysteries. 

Now, the Tao Te Ching is just words.

I'm a big admirer of Taoism, and an avid Tai Chi practitioner (Taoism expressed in motion, some call it). But I'm not about to claim that the Tao Te Ching expresses any sort of unique understanding of reality.

I'm just arguing there's no way the Tao Te Ching can be used to bolster a belief that "Those who know, say not. Those that say, know not." Saying and not saying in Taoism are just two different things. Both valid. Both real. Both expressions of the same source.

Which is mysterious. 

I pretty much agree with what Alan Watts says in "Taoism: Way Beyond Seeking."

So the Taoist, in common with the Hindus and the Buddhists, is a great advocate of intellectual silence. Mind you, one doesn't say that the intellect is a bad thing, or that one should be an anti-intellectual. Not at all.

Thnking is just as much a part of the process of nature as a web woven by a spider is. The spider weaves the web to make a net for flies, and the mind weaves a net for catching the universe. And that is fine, but there is something more to the universe than the net made for catching it.

But in order to find this something else, you must temporarily stop using the net, just as, if you want to hear what other people have to say, you have to stop talking. And if you want to talk, you must also know what you are talking about.

In other words, if words represent the real world, then you must be open to the real world in order to translate it effectively into words. But we are not taught to do that. Most of us think compulsively all the time.

That is to say, we carry on a perpetual interior conversation, because we are afraid that if that conversation were to cease, we too would cease. And, in a way, we would.

So, the Taoists speak constantly of being thoughtless, of having an empty mind, so that one can communicate with the real world without distortion. 

Comments

[Turan]

The notion of ‘Those who say know not’ runs through many traditions. Some of the Sufi stories for example talk of not addressing people while ‘this thing’ is in you. I take this to mean that the ‘thing’ is the ego/mind, whose main objective is to promote the ‘I’ or ‘self’ structure – we all know many teachers (and students) who thrive on attention. And perhaps along with Bruce Hood and others who study the brain/mind know it to be an illusion (not what it seems). In this sense perhaps they (the Sufi) are quite happy to ‘say’, but only when the whole self/mind/brain is understood and does not get in the way.
In ‘Ask the Awakened’, Wei Wu Wei says that truth cannot be transmitted factually; it can only be called up by ‘appropriate indication’. This is similar to the Sufi who teaches through situations as they occur rather than explaining through, what to a student is just theory – so they tread carefully with them as it were. For example, I experienced a couple of dramatic episodes where thinking was in abeyance. On reflection it started me on the quest to discover who of what the thinker is, how it arises and so on – which is why I embrace (a sort of) meditation and find out how others in the field of science and mind studies are conveying these concepts.
But most of the people I know are not at all interested in these matters and it would be quite futile and inappropriate to start a conversation about ‘selves’ and the like. Only very rarely will someone perhaps in exasperation say something like ‘I don’t know – what’s it all about?’ and wants to talk a little. But usually they just seems to want some relief or distraction from the perpetual voice in their heads
I don’t have a problem with chatting with people on these issues but I think there may be a need to know what they really want to know and talk about – and its rarely the ‘real world’ as I understand it and that you quote from Alan Watts
". . . we carry on a perpetual interior conversation, because we are afraid that if that conversation were to cease, we too would cease. And, in a way, we would. So, the Taoists speak constantly of being thoughtless, of having an empty mind, so that one can communicate with the real world without distortion."
I think that sums up quite nicely my take on the matter in that people do not want the conservation to cease – and probably don’t really want to be disturbed.

[Scott]

I'm just arguing there's no way the Tao Te Ching can be used to bolster a belief that "Those who know, say not. Those that say, know not." Saying and not saying in Taoism are just two different things. Both valid. Both real. Both expressions of the same source.

Which is mysterious.

Tao te Ching, Section 56:
He who knows, does not not speak;
He who speaks does not know.
Fill up its apertures,
Close its doors,
Dull its edges,
Untie its tangles,
Soften its light,
Submerge its turmoil,
This is the Mystic Unity.

[Mike Williams]

This is another translation ;

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 56

Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know.

Keep your mouth closed.
Guard your senses.
Temper your sharpness.
Simplify your problems.
Mask your brightness.
Be at one with the dust of the earth.
This is primal union.

He who has achieved this state
Is unconcerned with friends and enemies,
With good and harm, with honour and disgrace.
This therefore is the highest state of man.

[The9thGate]

Thank you Mike. I needed to hear that. The Rat Race is full of traps and poison. Sometimes I wish I were just a single celled organism :-)

[Gaz]

Hey The9thGate,

I still want to communicate with you buddy, Brian send my email address to him please. I've got some cool stuff i want to share with you.

Thanks
Gaz