To compare is to judge?

[Avolith]

I am reading this verse from the tao te ching, who can help me understand:

That which a person knows he has
is known to him by that which he does not have,
and that which he considers difficult
seems so because of that which he can do with ease.
One thing seems long by comparison with that
which is, comparatively, short.
One thing is high because another thing is low;
only when sound ceases is quietness known,
and that which leads
is seen to lead only by being followed.
In comparison, the sage,
in harmony with the Tao,
needs no comparisons,
and when he makes them, knows
that comparisons are judgements,
and just as relative to he who makes them,
and to the situation,
as they are to that on which
the judgement has been made.
Through his experience,
the sage becomes aware that all things change,
and that he who seems to lead,
might also, in another situation, follow.
So he does nothing; he neither leads nor follows.
That which he does is neither big nor small;
without intent, it is neither difficult,
nor done with ease.
His task completed, he then lets go of it;
seeking no credit, he cannot be discredited.
Thus, his teaching lasts for ever,
and he is held in high esteem.

Why is it that a comparison necessarily is also a judgement? Eg I can imagine comparing some objects' sizes without making a judgment as to which size is better? Am I taking it too literally?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

When struggling with parts of a highly interpreted text (all Tao Te Ching translations are personal interpretations) it can help to just compare several attempts to see if a more general sense or direction can be seen. Some parts of the original language and meaning might simply translate poorly to concepts we can process. The one you quote seems very heavily re-interpreted work from Stan Rosenthal.

Here's one of the comparison sites which can help although there were a few others with more picks.

Comparison of different translations of Tao Te Ching

A line like "the sage needs no comparisons: and "comparisons are relative to the who makes them" then show to be also read by other experts as " the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking" and most lines actually quite different in this passage. Also, it would not make sense to teach "needing no comparisons" as the Tao Te Ching seems to compare and contrast a lot.

Although I never found the ultimate translation and I still would read passages by several people, some are definitely done by wise people and others not. Some cater for an audience or culture more than trying to get into the original mindset. If you're interested I can provide two or three most interesting names but I'd need to look them up. But McDonald is usually fine. But better yet: make the comparison & judgement yourself! :-)

[Avolith]

Oh this is a great resource! Would also be interested to hear which translations you think or are regarded as being done by someone wise (rather than just someone doing translation), if not too much trouble to look up, but this should be very useful, thanks

[Santiago Odo]

Did Jean Baudrillard ever complete his translation? I don't know if the rumor that he had worked on one was apocryphal.

[Santiago Odo]

Why is it that a comparison necessarily is also a judgement?

Why did you not ask 'Why is a comparison a comparison'? What is the motive for comparing one thing with another? To valuate, to assess.

But the word 'judgment', in our languages, has a good deal of baggage, does it not? Judge not lest ye be judged, etc.

• In comparison, the sage,
  in harmony with the Tao,
  needs no comparisons,
  and when he makes them, knows
  that comparisons are judgements,
  and just as relative to he who makes them,
  and to the situation,
  as they are to that on which
  the judgement has been made.

I always try to refer to the words of Gustav Bjornstrand when those words are available. But when they are not I think it fair to refer to the *spirit of his words*.

Gustav Bjornstrand is wise. No one else is as wise. Therefore, the wisdom of Gustav Bjornstrand, in my view, has precedence over, say, the lesser wisdoms of lesser minds. (You-all know who you are and no names need be mentioned).

Now, despite what you might think I have not made the comparison the writer of the above-quoted eschews. Why? Because what has written Gustav Bjornstrand is the Tao itself! The wind moving on the surface of the water. The dazzling flame in its ever-unstill beauty.

Here, a quote:

• "... and for a moment I found myself enriched
  with an indescribable amazement as if informed that fireflies were making decodable signals
  on behalf of stranded spirits, or that a bat was writing a legible tale of torture
  in the bruised and branded sky."

Will you take the time to decypher the bat's meanderings? but more important to embody what has embodied them?

What I can teach you is how to embody the Tao. Then, when you speak you and it will be uncontestable. You will be aligned with the Tao! Do you see how this works?

You really want to know how this is done. I can tell!

One thing that David did get right is that The Sage when he aligns himself with Absolute Truth utters out of himself Truth.

But -- and David admitted as much if only to himself -- he did not quite approach the majestic inner situation of GB.

Bjornstrand needs no comparisons, and yet he seems to make them as the *will of the Tao* (so to speak) reveals itself among men.

Why do I champion him? Simple! By putting him ahead of me the Tao places me ahead of him, a trick phrase, but this really means only that by recognizing what I serve I serve the Tao.

Think on this and get back to me:

• I was the smudge of ashen fluff

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Oh this is a great resource! Would also be interested to hear which translations you think or are regarded as being done by someone wise (rather than just someone doing translation), if not too much trouble to look up, but this should be very useful, thanks

It's possible to wonder why a wise person would go over the words of another wise man trying to translate them. Isn't he himself just as good even better source of living wisdom? In the end though, language is many things but as well a technique and not a gift for someone to surpass just because of wisdom being there. For example my own translations of the first verses (eg "to Tao differentiates from Tao") still are the best available but I do recognize that the normal translation caught the attention of more people, like the idea that you should not approach the highest wisdom with reason or skill but instead with magic, power, chemicals, gymnastics, discipline, faith, inducing states of mind or follow commandments. The Tao Te Ching proves to be upon examination a very thoughtful, logical, playful and profound text. Knowing that such text was indeed written or composed by others such a long time ago is already a powerful pointer, a possibility others have walked the path.

One example thread, which for me proved valuable to explore this at the time is "A violent man will die a violent death!" ch. 42 it also includes a better comparison site. One other thread where it was exposed how bad translations are used to perpetuate and solidify ignorance (and so easy to prove!): here

There you can see what I found to be a valuable approach: first widen the scope of interpretation and then supply logic and coherent thought to arrive at a possible better understanding of what was intended (although certainty in that realm is illusive).

As for the best translators, D. T. Suzuki is certainly the most worthwhile and truest to the original phrases although it can lack in fluency or expressive power simply because of the gap between worlds. But it's not fixed by rewriting the whole thing as the question would rise again why not just write ones own understanding in similar prose or poetry.

He who seeks Reason will daily diminish. He will diminish and continue to diminish until he arrives at non-assertion. With non-assertion there is nothing that he cannot achieve."

[Avolith]

Oh this is a great resource! Would also be interested to hear which translations you think or are regarded as being done by someone wise (rather than just someone doing translation), if not too much trouble to look up, but this should be very useful, thanks

It's possible to wonder why a wise person would go over the words of another wise man trying to translate them. Isn't he himself just as good even better source of living wisdom?

I guess so!

In the end though, language is many things but as well a technique and not a gift for someone to surpass just because of wisdom being there. For example my own translations of the first verses (eg "to Tao differentiates from Tao") still are the best available but I do recognize that the normal translation caught the attention of more people, like the idea that you should not approach the highest wisdom with reason or skill but instead with magic, power, chemicals, gymnastics, discipline, faith, inducing states of mind or follow commandments.

Where could I find your translation? So then you went to the lengths of studying the original language (which language is it?)

Do you think meditation is a relevant tool on the way to wisdom, even if just as a stepping stone to prepare the mind? Do you have any thoughts on insight meditation? What about zazen?

More importantly. In a practical sense, would you have any recommendations on works to start out with to study? I already read david quinn, huang po's book, a good portion of the thinking man's minefield. I read the book on geinius by otto weininger and a bit of kierkegaard a while back, but haven't had the energy to really let the words have their way in my head yet. I figured I would try another angle, and the words of Kevin Solway, David Quinn, Huang Po are definitely easier to understand and seem more to the point of the nature of reality. I'm probably not seeing something, and kierkegaard\weininger and the other 'great ones' - I might need to give them another go with more effort.

The Tao Te Ching proves to be upon examination a very thoughtful, logical, playful and profound text. Knowing that such text was indeed written or composed by others such a long time ago is already a powerful pointer, a possibility others have walked the path.

Do you believe that the Tao te ching is also limited and maybe overvalued, and should not be put above or below other writings of wise people? Especially given the tricky situation with the widely differing translations.

One example thread, which for me proved valuable to explore this at the time is "A violent man will die a violent death!" ch. 42 it also includes a better comparison site. One other thread where it was exposed how bad translations are used to perpetuate and solidify ignorance (and so easy to prove!): here

There you can see what I found to be a valuable approach: first widen the scope of interpretation and then supply logic and coherent thought to arrive at a possible better understanding of what was intended (although certainty in that realm is illusive).

I'll add it to the reading list. Also, I definitely could use some advice on prioritizing all the material available.

As for the best translators, D. T. Suzuki is certainly the most worthwhile and truest to the original phrases although it can lack in fluency or expressive power simply because of the gap between worlds. But it's not fixed by rewriting the whole thing as the question would rise again why not just write ones own understanding in similar prose or poetry.

Alright

He who seeks Reason will daily diminish. He will diminish and continue to diminish until he arrives at non-assertion. With non-assertion there is nothing that he cannot achieve."

I'll leave my interpretation of this here. And would be open to feedback.

If I were to look around and try to thoroughly investigate whether the things I see are really true, I would naturally be looking into my own world view, which is a model that can never by completely coherent. I would, if I apply enough scrutiny, constantly discover new incoherencies that further invalidate my views, until some 'threshold' is reached, after which moment the projections of my personal understanding on reality become seen for the things they truly are, thereby dropping most delusions in one go. This would also entail becoming entirely free to play around with these perspectives, hence there being nothing I could not achieve - and/or: this would entail no longer identifying with the ego that was baked into my body, but instead with the entirity of reality, which naturally encompasses everything that can possibly be achieved

[Avolith]

Why is it that a comparison necessarily is also a judgement?

Why did you not ask 'Why is a comparison a comparison'? What is the motive for comparing one thing with another? To valuate, to assess.

But the word 'judgment', in our languages, has a good deal of baggage, does it not? Judge not lest ye be judged, etc.

That makes sense. In my imagined thought experiment where I was comparing something without judging, I suppose if I were to do it, I would be doing it to judge wether the verse in the tao te ching is true or not! And it's true! Haaah

• In comparison, the sage,
  in harmony with the Tao,
  needs no comparisons,
  and when he makes them, knows
  that comparisons are judgements,
  and just as relative to he who makes them,
  and to the situation,
  as they are to that on which
  the judgement has been made.

I always try to refer to the words of Gustav Bjornstrand when those words are available. But when they are not I think it fair to refer to the *spirit of his words*.

Gustav Bjornstrand is wise. No one else is as wise. Therefore, the wisdom of Gustav Bjornstrand, in my view, has precedence over, say, the lesser wisdoms of lesser minds. (You-all know who you are and no names need be mentioned).

Alright, but, how do you know he's wise?

Now, despite what you might think I have not made the comparison the writer of the above-quoted eschews. Why? Because what has written Gustav Bjornstrand is the Tao itself! The wind moving on the surface of the water. The dazzling flame in its ever-unstill beauty.

Here, a quote:

• "... and for a moment I found myself enriched
  with an indescribable amazement as if informed that fireflies were making decodable signals
  on behalf of stranded spirits, or that a bat was writing a legible tale of torture
  in the bruised and branded sky."

Will you take the time to decypher the bat's meanderings? but more important to embody what has embodied them?

I think I am probably missing some context to be able to understand this. Assuming he is an enlightened person of some sort, It seems that his experience became completely transformed and he had a lively and deep intuition becoming directly accessible and tied in to all of his sense perceptions.

What I can teach you is how to embody the Tao. Then, when you speak you and it will be uncontestable. You will be aligned with the Tao! Do you see how this works?

If you could teach me things, you would be teaching me instead of telling me you can teach me!

You really want to know how this is done. I can tell!

One thing that David did get right is that The Sage when he aligns himself with Absolute Truth utters out of himself Truth.

But -- and David admitted as much if only to himself -- he did not quite approach the majestic inner situation of GB.

What is 'a majestic inner situation' besides some words hinting at nice aesthetics?

Bjornstrand needs no comparisons, and yet he seems to make them as the *will of the Tao* (so to speak) reveals itself among men.

Why do I champion him? Simple! By putting him ahead of me the Tao places me ahead of him, a trick phrase, but this really means only that by recognizing what I serve I serve the Tao.

Is it me or did you just rationalize feminine virtue signaling using Taoist philosophy

Think on this and get back to me:

• I was the smudge of ashen fluff

I don't believe this particular riddle would be a good way to spend my time, or that I would ever decipher anything, especially without context

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Avolith, I see you found the joy of exchanging wise crack with the Janus-ian Santiago/Gustav/Alex Jacob/Talking A entity :-)

So then you went to the lengths of studying the original language (which language is it?)

Of course there's the limit right there. While I did study it for the famous first verses in terms of reading the views of many on the particular usage and origins of the characters (for example this review) it would become quite a labour that way and there are translations around which seem sufficient. But I found similar issues with translations of Nietzsche or some famous "sayings of Buddha" or not to mention Bible verses. When it's used to beef up some belief it's most often a dodgy practice. In my view the wise person goes into the text knowing fully well what he's doing. But instead of making it up he has the freedom to reject the text as faulty, no matter the origin or find a translation better suited. In the end a way more consistent and fair picture is allowed to emerge.

Do you think meditation is a relevant tool on the way to wisdom, even if just as a stepping stone to prepare the mind? Do you have any thoughts on insight meditation? What about zazen?

It's a big topic and perhaps suited to have a dedicated thread to it (there are quite a few already). Any method to calm down the mind as to make it more able to reflect, breath and focus on what matters would seem like a wise plan to follow. But read carefully here, as it can be used just as easily to distract, as an advanced anesthetic or to focus on complete insanity. So it's a technique with many applications. With Zazen for example one can practice some level of detachment and depersonalization. Then again, there's something fundamental unrestful to spirit, to mind. This is something I often bring up in discussions on mind, calmness and mediation. There's an uneasy balance here, if it can be called a balance even,

More importantly. In a practical sense, would you have any recommendations on works to start out with to study?

You generally start out by finding out for oneself a good path to walk. You seem to be doing just fine from what you told me earlier. Everyone is on a path but a wise man actually starts to understand the nature and direction of his own path with increasingly greater clarity. That's why you can and should be the one who figures out where to go from here. Perhaps something completely opposite to what you studied so far since clarity is enhanced by contrast and to some extent conflict, to remain on topic :-)

Do you believe that the Tao te ching is also limited and maybe overvalued, and should not be put above or below other writings of wise people? Especially given the tricky situation with the widely differing translations.

People who most often use it seem to do it for the wrong reasons. But it can still provide a great canvas to reflect upon. In general the Daoist tradition provides a well thought out, natural framework for mental development. Especially "ancient" wisdom tradition can get this divine glow, this iconification just by being old and having survived so long. That power is useful but also a trap. Does this answer your question?

If I were to look around and try to thoroughly investigate whether the things I see are really true, I would naturally be looking into my own world view, which is a model that can never by completely coherent. I would, if I apply enough scrutiny, constantly discover new incoherencies that further invalidate my views, until some 'threshold' is reached, after which moment the projections of my personal understanding on reality become seen for the things they truly are, thereby dropping most delusions in one go. This would also entail becoming entirely free to play around with these perspectives, hence there being nothing I could not achieve - and/or: this would entail no longer identifying with the ego that was baked into my body, but instead with the entirety of reality, which naturally encompasses everything that can possibly be achieved

Yes, but I'll add that being free to play around with perspective is not like a game with random picks or poses. There are still great principles being adhered to. So in some sense it's with the greatest seriousness as well. And if that was not the case, how could one remain interested to even bother unless it's boredom or power play. So we can also see seriousness is a very important factor despite all the illusive components suggesting it could be abandoned or let go off at will. And it all needs to be burned or seen as burning.

[Avolith]

Hi Avolith, I see you found the joy of exchanging wise crack with the Janus-ian Santiago/Gustav/Alex Jacob/Talking A entity :-)

So then you went to the lengths of studying the original language (which language is it?)

Of course there's the limit right there. While I did study it for the famous first verses in terms of reading the views of many on the particular usage oand origins of the characters (for example this review) it would become quite a labour that way and there are transalations around which seem sufficient. But I found similar issues with translations of Nietzsche or some famous "sayings of Buddha" or not to mention Bible verses. When it's used to beef up some belief it's most often a dodgy practise. In my view the wise person goes into the text knowin fully well what he's doing. But instead of making it up he has the freedom to reject the text as faulty, no matter the origin or find a translation better suited. In the end a way more consistent and fair picture is allowed to emerge.

Alright! So the takeaway is to take all the material for what it is and use your own judgement to form your own translation and understanding.

Do you think meditation is a relevant tool on the way to wisdom, even if just as a stepping stone to prepare the mind? Do you have any thoughts on insight meditation? What about zazen?

It's a big topic and perhaps suited to have a dedicated thread to it (there are quite a few already). Any method to calm down the mind as to make it more able to reflect, breath and focus on what matters would seem like a wise plan to follow. But read carefully here, as it can be used just as easily to distract, as an advanced anaesthetic or to focus on complete insanity. So it's a technique with many applications. With Zazen for example one can practise some level of detachment and depersonalization. Then again, there's something fundamental unrestful to spirit, to mind. This is something I often bring up in discussions on mind, calmness and mediation. There's an uneasy balance here, if it can be called a balance even,

I'll start by looking at those topics then

More importantly. In a practical sense, would you have any recommendations on works to start out with to study?

You generally start out by finding out for oneself a good path to walk. You seem to be doing just fine from what you told me earlier. Everyone is on a path but a wise man actually starts to understand the nature and direction of his own path with increasingly greater clarity. That's why you can and should be the one who figures out where to go from here. Perhaps something completely opposite to what you studied so far since clarity is enhanced by contrast and to some extent conflict, to remain on topic :-)

Do you believe that the Tao te ching is also limited and maybe overvalued, and should not be put above or below other writings of wise people? Especially given the tricky situation with the widely differing translations.

People who most often use it seem to do it for the wrong reasons. But it can still provide a great canvas to reflect upon. In general the Daoist tradition provides a well thought out, natural framework for mental development. Especially "ancient" wisdom tradition can get this divine glow, this iconification just by being old and having survived so long. That power is useful but also a trap. Does this answer your question?

Yes it does

If I were to look around and try to thoroughly investigate whether the things I see are really true, I would naturally be looking into my own world view, which is a model that can never by completely coherent. I would, if I apply enough scrutiny, constantly discover new incoherencies that further invalidate my views, until some 'threshold' is reached, after which moment the projections of my personal understanding on reality become seen for the things they truly are, thereby dropping most delusions in one go. This would also entail becoming entirely free to play around with these perspectives, hence there being nothing I could not achieve - and/or: this would entail no longer identifying with the ego that was baked into my body, but instead with the entirity of reality, which naturally encompasses everything that can possibly be achieved

Yes, but I'll add that being free to play around with perspective is not like a game with random picks or poses. There are still great principles being adhered to. So in some sense it's with the greatest seriousness as well.

That's in line with how I conceptualize it now

And if that was not the case, how could one remain interested to even bother unless it's boredom or power play.

So we can also see seriousness is a very important factor despite all the illusive components suggesting it could be abandoned or let go off at will. And it all needs to be burned or seen as burning.

I think this is a place where I lack understanding or have a blind spot, but might be slowly getting there. Zooming in on my replies to Santiago's posts. I had some sense of having to defend my integrity from something. But if I manage to drop that perspective, instead comes a perspective of Santiago as a nothingness of no consequence... Is that why you called him an 'entity'? And then once I'm there, there might yet be something interesting to discover... but I'm still skeptical

[Santiago Odo]

If I were to look around and try to thoroughly investigate whether the things I see are really true, I would naturally be looking into my own world view, which is a model that can never by completely coherent. I would, if I apply enough scrutiny, constantly discover new incoherencies that further invalidate my views, until some 'threshold' is reached, after which moment the projections of my personal understanding on reality become seen for the things they truly are, thereby dropping most delusions in one go. This would also entail becoming entirely free to play around with these perspectives, hence there being nothing I could not achieve - and/or: this would entail no longer identifying with the ego that was baked into my body, but instead with the entirety of reality, which naturally encompasses everything that can possibly be achieved.

When we look at those things 'really true', we can, without much effort, pull the rug out from underneath them. You are on the right track -- and this is, I think this is obvious, supported by The Tao, the advocate of the Wise. It is in a sense an act of the will to 'drop delusions', in 'one go' if possible, but if not then fragments and filaments at a time, day by darling day. It's true, so very true, that the sage gives up the small and gains . . . everything. We become antennas. Void of any intentionality, any guiding idea, so false, so partial, and simply an apparatus that hears Wisdom in the great expanses of space.

Eventually -- and this is out goal -- we become silent. Like rocks in a Japanese garden. Just by being there, visible, motiveless, we quite literally become the Tao's fulcrum in this world!

People who most often use it seem to do it for the wrong reasons. But it can still provide a great canvas to reflect upon. In general the Taoist tradition provides a well thought out, natural framework for mental development. Especially "ancient" wisdom tradition can get this divine glow, this iconification just by being old and having survived so long. That power is useful but also a trap. Does this answer your question?

This really hits home, given so much conversation that has brought out into the open these virulent 'wrong reasons'. The right reasons I think can be clearly stated in an a b c order.

A well thought-out framework to stop any conceptualization about anything and everything, and to turn oneself like a sunflower toward the Dark Abyss to receive what I can only describe as an influx of awakening consciousness.

Do you concur or would you prefer to have it in poetical form?

You have said it well, though a bid sideways: the 'divine glow' is merely an icon and has a romantic value simply by having survived so long. But this 'attraction', somewhat dazzling, is to be resisted in order to arrive at that which you masterfully allude without actually stating! And there we have, once and again, a transformative exposition on Tao by the Tao. If you said it, it would not be the Tao!

You generally start out by finding out for oneself a good path to walk. You seem to be doing just fine from what you told me earlier. Everyone is on a path but a wise man actually starts to understand the nature and direction of his own path with increasingly greater clarity. That's why you can and should be the one who figures out where to go from here.

Marvelous! The Wise, turning their sun-disk to Heaven, receive the Tao's guidance. The former Texts are 'traps' as you say. The guidance of schools of the wise are irrelevancies for those properly tuned-in. The Shining Path and the Star are our guides. A bit of Tao, a taste of Weininger, a month or two with our nose to Nietzsche, the destruction of an erroneous conceptual framework, and voilà. The Sage is Born.

Isn't he himself just as good even better source of living wisdom?

This made me cry!

I think this is a place where I lack understanding or have a blind spot, but might be slowly getting there. Zooming in on my replies to Santiago's posts. I had some sense of having to defend my integrity from something. But if I manage to drop that perspective, instead comes a perspective of Santiago as a nothingness of no consequence... Is that why you called him an 'entity'? And then once I'm there, there might yet be something interesting to discover... but I'm still skeptical.

Defending integrity is a message that there is something to be relinquished. There can be no *blind spot* because there is nothing to see! Both you and "Santiago" have no consequence. But it will be a tactic of the ego (beware!), out of harmony with Tao, if you only see him as of no consequence. You place him beneath you, don't you see? You elevate yourself into *specialness*.

With an aggressive, tyrannical blow, bring the realization home that you have no consequence. No meaning! No goal! Nothing to seek! No name. No home.

I already read David Quinn, Huang Po's book, a good portion of The Thinking Man's Minefield. I read the book on genius by Otto Weininger and a bit of Kierkegaard a while back, but haven't had the energy to really let the words have their way in my head yet. I figured I would try another angle, and the words of Kevin Solway, David Quinn, Huang Po are definitely easier to understand and seem more to the point of the nature of reality. I'm probably not seeing something, and Kierkegaard\Weininger and the other 'great ones' - I might need to give them another go with more effort.

You are right on track. Give yourself just a little while more. It will come all at once, unbidden. One day you will simple Be Wise and, like Diebert here, will not only know what 'wisdom' is but, with just a few guiding words, bring avid seekers right to wisdom's door.

I can't think of much more to add except perhaps to muse on the waxwing's flight, the window in pale winter light, visions of reflected objects interior and exterior, and the awesome stillness of Gustav Bjornstrand's silhouette at dusk ...

[Avolith]

If I were to look around and try to thoroughly investigate whether the things I see are really true, I would naturally be looking into my own world view, which is a model that can never by completely coherent. I would, if I apply enough scrutiny, constantly discover new incoherencies that further invalidate my views, until some 'threshold' is reached, after which moment the projections of my personal understanding on reality become seen for the things they truly are, thereby dropping most delusions in one go. This would also entail becoming entirely free to play around with these perspectives, hence there being nothing I could not achieve - and/or: this would entail no longer identifying with the ego that was baked into my body, but instead with the entirety of reality, which naturally encompasses everything that can possibly be achieved.

When we look at those things 'really true', we can, without much effort, pull the rug out from underneath them. You are on the right track -- and this is, I think this is obvious, supported by The Tao, the advocate of the Wise. It is in a sense an act of the will to 'drop delusions', in 'one go' if possible, but if not then fragments and filaments at a time, day by darling day. It's true, so very true, that the sage gives up the small and gains . . . everything. We become antennas. Void of any intentionality, any guiding idea, so false, so partial, and simply an apparatus that hears Wisdom in the great expanses of space.

Eventually -- and this is out goal -- we become silent. Like rocks in a Japanese garden. Just by being there, visible, motiveless, we quite literally become the Tao's fulcrum in this world!

People who most often use it seem to do it for the wrong reasons. But it can still provide a great canvas to reflect upon. In general the Taoist tradition provides a well thought out, natural framework for mental development. Especially "ancient" wisdom tradition can get this divine glow, this iconification just by being old and having survived so long. That power is useful but also a trap. Does this answer your question?

This really hits home, given so much conversation that has brought out into the open these virulent 'wrong reasons'. The right reasons I think can be clearly stated in an a b c order.

A well thought-out framework to stop any conceptualization about anything and everything, and to turn oneself like a sunflower toward the Dark Abyss to receive what I can only describe as an influx of awakening consciousness.

Do you concur or would you prefer to have it in poetical form?

You have said it well, though a bid sideways: the 'divine glow' is merely an icon and has a romantic value simply by having survived so long. But this 'attraction', somewhat dazzling, is to be resisted in order to arrive at that which you masterfully allude without actually stating! And there we have, once and again, a transformative exposition on Tao by the Tao. If you said it, it would not be the Tao!

You generally start out by finding out for oneself a good path to walk. You seem to be doing just fine from what you told me earlier. Everyone is on a path but a wise man actually starts to understand the nature and direction of his own path with increasingly greater clarity. That's why you can and should be the one who figures out where to go from here.

Marvelous! The Wise, turning their sun-disk to Heaven, receive the Tao's guidance. The former Texts are 'traps' as you say. The guidance of schools of the wise are irrelevancies for those properly tuned-in. The Shining Path and the Star are our guides. A bit of Tao, a taste of Weininger, a month or two with our nose to Nietzsche, the destruction of an erroneous conceptual framework, and voilà. The Sage is Born.

Isn't he himself just as good even better source of living wisdom?

This made me cry!

I already read David Quinn, Huang Po's book, a good portion of The Thinking Man's Minefield. I read the book on genius by Otto Weininger and a bit of Kierkegaard a while back, but haven't had the energy to really let the words have their way in my head yet. I figured I would try another angle, and the words of Kevin Solway, David Quinn, Huang Po are definitely easier to understand and seem more to the point of the nature of reality. I'm probably not seeing something, and Kierkegaard\Weininger and the other 'great ones' - I might need to give them another go with more effort.

You are right on track. Give yourself just a little while more. It will come all at once, unbidden. One day you will simple Be Wise and, like Diebert here, will not only know what 'wisdom' is but, with just a few guiding words, bring avid seekers right to wisdom's door.

I can't think of much more to add except perhaps to muse on the waxwing's flight, the window in pale winter light, visions of reflected objects interior and exterior, and the awesome stillness of Gustav Bjornstrand's silhouette at dusk ...

If only you could use all that intelligence and sense for aesthetics for something true instead of desperately trying to keep yourself sedated. I do agree with the idea that romanticizing wisdom is a bad idea, assuming that's the actual point you were making. It's an almost unavoidable trap that an appearance of that comes up, because words have to be used to point at something beyond themselves, and those words come with a history, a baggage...

[Santiago Odo]

If only you could use all that intelligence and sense for aesthetics for something true instead of desperately trying to keep yourself sedated.

This is intriguing. What do you mean?

It's an almost unavoidable trap that an appearance of that comes up, because words have to be used to point at something beyond themselves, and those words come with a history, a baggage.

...slime, secretion, residue, odor.

[Avolith]

If only you could use all that intelligence and sense for aesthetics for something true instead of desperately trying to keep yourself sedated.

This is intriguing. What do you mean?

It happens alot that you take something someone says, and rather than allowing your mind to follow the signpost, you latch onto its appearance and direct all your energy to debunking the appearance.

[Santiago Odo]

You seem to have switched themes. I asked about 'sedation' and you are now speaking about misunderstanding of a 'sign'.

Or, are you referring to my amplification of your meaning about 'baggage'? If 'baggage' was a sign, and I amplified your meaning to include '...slime, secretion, residue, odor', am I really misapprehending?

[Avolith]

You seem to have switched themes. I asked about 'sedation' and you are now speaking about misunderstanding of a 'sign'.

Or, are you referring to my amplification of your meaning about 'baggage'? If 'baggage' was a sign, and I amplified your meaning to include '...slime, secretion, residue, odor', am I really misapprehending?

It's not a switch of themes. I mean that not allowing your mind to follow the signpost is sedation, and actively debunking the signpost is an active effort to remain sedated.

I wasnt referring to your words on slime etc specifically. I guess you could regard my whole remark on words coming with baggage as another signpost, and your words on slime as ridiculing it and 'debunking' the signpost again.

[Santiago Odo]

Tao be with you always, my child.

[David Quinn]

Hi Avolith,

I am reading this verse from the tao te ching, who can help me understand:

That which a person knows he has
is known to him by that which he does not have,
and that which he considers difficult
seems so because of that which he can do with ease.
One thing seems long by comparison with that
which is, comparatively, short.
One thing is high because another thing is low;
only when sound ceases is quietness known,
and that which leads
is seen to lead only by being followed.
In comparison, the sage,
in harmony with the Tao,
needs no comparisons,
and when he makes them, knows
that comparisons are judgements,
and just as relative to he who makes them,
and to the situation,
as they are to that on which
the judgement has been made.
Through his experience,
the sage becomes aware that all things change,
and that he who seems to lead,
might also, in another situation, follow.
So he does nothing; he neither leads nor follows.
That which he does is neither big nor small;
without intent, it is neither difficult,
nor done with ease.
His task completed, he then lets go of it;
seeking no credit, he cannot be discredited.
Thus, his teaching lasts for ever,
and he is held in high esteem.

Why is it that a comparison necessarily is also a judgement? Eg I can imagine comparing some objects' sizes without making a judgment as to which size is better? Am I taking it too literally?

That’s a terrible translation. As a rule, I tend to prefer the Gia-Fu Feng translation, not least because it is the most pithy translation out there. By keeping it pithy, there are fewer avenues for the translator to introduce his own deluded understandings into the mix.

I think what the translator above is trying to say is that because the sage is not attached to anything (he is in “harmony with the Tao”; he has nothing invested in any outcome), his mind is unclouded by illusion and emotion and thus he can see things truly. His judgments are effortless and pure.

In a practical sense, would you have any recommendations on works to start out with to study? I already read david quinn, huang po's book, a good portion of the thinking man's minefield. I read the book on geinius by otto weininger and a bit of kierkegaard a while back, but haven't had the energy to really let the words have their way in my head yet. I figured I would try another angle, and the words of Kevin Solway, David Quinn, Huang Po are definitely easier to understand and seem more to the point of the nature of reality. I'm probably not seeing something, and kierkegaard\weininger and the other 'great ones' - I might need to give them another go with more effort.

You seem to be someone who is genuinely interested in getting to the fundamental truth of things. As such, my advice would be to stick to those texts that also focus on the fundamental truth of things - e.g. Huang Po, Lin-Chi, Bodhidarrma, Chuang Tzu, Diamond Sutra, Hakuin, etc. But use them sparingly. Don’t breeze through their words like you would a novel. Learn to meditate deeply on a single sentence or passage at a time.

Enlightenment can only be reached when a person whips up a highly-focused passion for ultimate understanding. That’s the main purpose of these spiritual texts, to encourage the reader to abandon their reading and ascend to an urgent, life-and-death quest for ultimate truth. If you read too much, you become too passive and the road is blocked off.

Once you have broken through and grasped the very root of everything, then you can broaden back out and start reading the likes of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and so on, with safety.

Do you think meditation is a relevant tool on the way to wisdom, even if just as a stepping stone to prepare the mind? Do you have any thoughts on insight meditation? What about zazen?

When you are genuinely interested in comprehending the ultimate truth, meditative states will start to appear naturally. You don’t have to worry about formal meditation. Wherever the heart is, the mind will follow.

[Santiago Odo]

Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Bjornstrand.

Fixed that for you . . .

[Santiago Odo]

I think what the translator above is trying to say is that because the sage is not attached to anything (he is in “harmony with the Tao”; he has nothing invested in any outcome), his mind is unclouded by illusion and emotion and thus he can see things truly. His judgments are effortless and pure.

Some of the afflicted, the semi-enlightened or the partial-enlightened -- now, this could change of course and often it does! -- might wonder about this phrasing but I think we can clear it up.

To have no attachment ("nothing invested in any outcome") indicates a total relinquishment of self and persona and also psyche to any constructive endeavor. Therefore, the Sage goes blank in a sense; he becomes part of Nature in the sense that Nature is completely determined by unconscious or non-conscious process. What happens, happens. Within the framework of the Great Is.

The 'soul' or the 'psyche' of a human being (one and the same term at least traditionally) stands in contrast to Nature in this sense. That is our source of conflict, our first bumbling step out of the Garden as it were. Man intervenes in Nature; man 'opposes' Nature if you will; man contradicts nature. Man contemplating man and man contemplating Nature engages in what we must now call a 'false metaphysical imposition'. But -- and this is hard for some young Sages (sages not completely hatched or those still with the slime of birth on them) -- it is exactly this illusory involvement with or investment in 'outcome' that the Sage relinquishes.

I think that I expressed it nicely here, let me quote:

A well thought-out framework to stop any conceptualization about anything and everything, and to turn oneself like a sunflower toward the Dark Abyss to receive what I can only describe as an influx of awakening consciousness.

The Wise, turning their sun-disk to Heaven, receive the Tao's guidance. The former Texts are 'traps' as you say. The guidance of schools of the wise are irrelevancies for those properly tuned-in. The Shining Path and the Star are our guides. A bit of Tao, a taste of Weininger, a month or two with our nose to Nietzsche, the destruction of an erroneous conceptual framework, and voilà. The Sage is Born.

Going blank, relinquishing any decisiveness, any sort of choice or discrimination may seem to be an 'anti-human' effort, it might even seem fundamentally impossible (and therefore a self-deception!) but this is not so.

Just like a Sunflower (here I wax poetical ...) the Wise 'turn their sun-disk to Heaven' and receive the Tao's impulses. No thought is needed. No troublesome analysis. No decision. No debate. No (::: laughs :::) exercise of reason. The pure antenna of sagacity receives into himself as a pure note a curative to the *noise* of all the former. You could say, then, that when the Sage strikes the ball with his sagacious Ping No 3 Wood, it is no longer himself that strikes the ball and enjoys the outcome, it is Tao.

Enlightenment can only be reached when a person whips up a highly-focused passion for ultimate understanding.

His judgments are effortless and pure.

This seems like a contradiction or perhaps I should say an area of conflict. A 'passion for understanding' must be driven by desire at one level or another. Thus, one might think that the desire is human in all these senses I mentioned above. Some pseudo-sages, of course, confuse their desire for transformation, or their *desperation* with aspects of their human self, with the 'passion' to gain 'ultimate understanding', and what occurs in them is, shall I say, legendary. But the True Sage avoids this and sails into the Enlightened State (our pure, original state!) without scraping the edges of the berth, as it were.

[Avolith]

Hello David,

Good to see you posting (especially to give me advice, hah). I read a lot of the material on geniusrealms and your blog.

Hi Avolith,

I am reading this verse from the tao te ching, who can help me understand:

...

Why is it that a comparison necessarily is also a judgement? Eg I can imagine comparing some objects' sizes without making a judgment as to which size is better? Am I taking it too literally?

That’s a terrible translation. As a rule, I tend to prefer the Gia-Fu Feng translation, not least because it is the most pithy translation out there. By keeping it pithy, there are fewer avenues for the translator to introduce his own deluded understandings into the mix.

I think what the translator above is trying to say is that because the sage is not attached to anything (he is in “harmony with the Tao”; he has nothing invested in any outcome), his mind is unclouded by illusion and emotion and thus he can see things truly. His judgments are effortless and pure.

In a practical sense, would you have any recommendations on works to start out with to study? I already read david quinn, huang po's book, a good portion of the thinking man's minefield. I read the book on geinius by otto weininger and a bit of kierkegaard a while back, but haven't had the energy to really let the words have their way in my head yet. I figured I would try another angle, and the words of Kevin Solway, David Quinn, Huang Po are definitely easier to understand and seem more to the point of the nature of reality. I'm probably not seeing something, and kierkegaard\weininger and the other 'great ones' - I might need to give them another go with more effort.

You seem to be someone who is genuinely interested in getting to the fundamental truth of things. As such, my advice would be to stick to those texts that also focus on the fundamental truth of things - e.g. Huang Po, Lin-Chi, Bodhidarrma, Chuang Tzu, Diamond Sutra, Hakuin, etc. But use them sparingly. Don’t breeze through their words like you would a novel. Learn to meditate deeply on a single sentence or passage at a time.

Enlightenment can only be reached when a person whips up a highly-focused passion for ultimate understanding. That’s the main purpose of these spiritual texts, to encourage the reader to abandon their reading and ascend to an urgent, life-and-death quest for ultimate truth. If you read too much, you become too passive and the road is blocked off.

I did notice this theme coming back again and again, the sages constantly warning not to pay attention to the words and not focus too much on the seeking

You mention a life-and-death quest. Sometimes I feel an anxiety coming up when thinking. It's quite subtle and it tends to get cut off, with a vague idea of the potential for it growing into something more potent. Is this what you might be referring to? Is it just part of it?

And/Or, Is this life-and-death situation something that comes about once enough insight has accumulated and it's seen that there really is no viable alternative in the worldly world, eg all avenues become closed off and your only way to life is to understand? If so, would you say that that's a necessary condition? It's naturally a scary prospect.

Once you have broken through and grasped the very root of everything, then you can broaden back out and start reading the likes of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and so on, with safety.

The risk being, a misunderstanding, maybe permanent, I suppose?

Do you think meditation is a relevant tool on the way to wisdom, even if just as a stepping stone to prepare the mind? Do you have any thoughts on insight meditation? What about zazen?

When you are genuinely interested in comprehending the ultimate truth, meditative states will start to appear naturally. You don’t have to worry about formal meditation. Wherever the heart is, the mind will follow.

So then, given that the purpose of the texts is for the reader to leave the words and ascend to an urgent, life-and-death quest, and the texts should be used sparingly to deeply meditate on specific passages, I almost get the sense that it doesn't really matter which specific passage I meditate on (assuming it's true and relevant of course)

I tried to follow your advice today. I focused on a specific passage, trying to figure it out. I could more or less form a conceptual understanding of things but that was not very useful in and of itself. I tried to take the next step, which effectively turned into a storm of thoughts going through my head, where I was trying to relate the concept to memories, my immediate experience, trying to reason with it, and so forth. Is that how it's supposed to go - I doubt it because I repeatedly read that the ultimate goal involves the cessation of all conceptual thought. Or, is the storm perhaps supposed to collapse in onto itself once the opposing conflicting thoughts have annihilated eachother? Or rather that seeing all these inconsistencies somehow intuitively spurs the forming of a non conceptual understanding.

I suppose I'll go off and think about that for a bit!

[Santiago Odo]

The risk being, a misunderstanding, maybe permanent, I suppose?

Spiritual erectile disfunction (Diebert), or wisdom-priapism (Jupi).

Depends on the Seeker.

[Pam Seeback]

Avolith: Why is it that a comparison necessarily is also a judgement? Eg I can imagine comparing some objects' sizes without making a judgment as to which size is better? Am I taking it too literally?

Making a comparison of size without context of meaning - judgment - is a lifeless experience, is it not? Judgment and consciousness go hand-in-hand, one could even say that judgment is the life of consciousness. Where judgment becomes suffering is it is projected - asserted - into the world as if it is a universal or absolute truth.

Let's say you prefer small dogs to large dogs. If your judgment (your preference, your meaning, your valuing of) of dog size ends here, you are in harmony with the Tao. If, however, your preference for small dogs over large dogs causes you to debate or to argue with those who prefer large dogs over small dogs, then you are out of harmony with the Tao.

[jupiviv]

Am I taking it too literally?

Not necessarily. If what you read doesn't seem wise or reasonable to you then ignore it and move on to something else. You could be wrong in your judgment, but if something is wise it won't fail to make itself known to you eventually. Reading wise things is mostly about finding different ways of expressing your own thoughts. Hence:

In comparison, the sage,
in harmony with the Tao,
needs no comparisons,

[Santiago Odo]

Making a comparison of size without context of meaning - judgment - is a lifeless experience, is it not? Judgment and consciousness go hand-in-hand, one could even say that judgment is the life of consciousness. Where judgment becomes suffering is it is projected - asserted - into the world as if it is a universal or absolute truth.

You start out well. You end in failure. Or better put, you end in a kind of powerlessness. A relinquishment. There is also a logical contradiction. For if one projected or asserted a truth into the world but only as a relative truth, it does not follow that *suffering* would not still result. One could suffer more with a relative truth. So, any assertion at any point and for any reason must be, for you, problematic.

The issue -- which is really your problem (and those who think like this) -- is that you have deep issues with 'suffering' (and this can be understood). You have this impossible idea that it is avoidable, and perhaps even that it is desirable to avoid it. A false claim. A neurotic claim. One could assert that it is better and ultimately necessary to master suffering rather than to avoid it. There are numerous alternative possibilities.

Let's say you prefer small dogs to large dogs. If your judgment (your preference, your meaning, your valuing of) of dog size ends here, you are in harmony with the Tao. If, however, your preference for small dogs over large dogs causes you to debate or to argue with those who prefer large dogs over small dogs, then you are out of harmony with the Tao.

Interesting how you speak for the Tao. Quo warranto? Still, this is a bad example. According to you there should be no preference at all. A dog, a rock, some vapor in a pan -- all equal. Any preference, at any point, produces anguish. But going further one notices that your declarations about the Tao -- as if it has or recommends non-preferences -- is a foil behind which certain levels of your own choice and assertions lurk. If 'being in harmony with the Tao' is a value-assertion, then you are making specific assertions, judgments, that are of more consequence than that of small dogs and big dogs. Therefore, you get to play the game of valuation while pretending not to.

You imply that very important questions and issues, those that are crucial to people, to families, to the living of life, to the affairs of this world and those of *worlds beyond*, can be reduced to inanities, and (logically) should be seen as similar categories. This is the field where your error expresses itself.

'The Sage' (as the sage-game is played here) plays a game with himself within an imagined/forced 'enlightenment' and as a result of this misses all important points. This particular disease arises, I gather, out of cultural nihilism. It is neurotic and unhealthy. It operates like a drug. He can find *willing victims*, alienated from themselves, and induce them to the same neurotic posture, and this is proselytization.

It is a Ponzi scheme of the mind.

This idea of 'harmony with the Tao' needs a profound reworking within the specific context of everyone who writes here. It is an attractive -- a seductive -- self-deception based in a strange (a questionable) metaphysical dream of the world. Too general to have much meaning at all, it attracts I gather those who seek to escape the responsibilities of meaning.