Teachers (Revisited)

[Fred Steeves]

Posted by Carmen (here)

It sometimes takes a huge shock or great change of some sort to pause that chatter, that belief, and for the greater intelligence to make itself known. If the being gives attention to the wonder of that, the learning can begin, otherwise the veil just drops again. It can take months and sometimes years for another parting of the veil, but once experienced its never forgotten. The altered ego can then start to be guided in the ways of spirit, but it's like a wilful child, it takes time, persistence and patience. And I agree with you, it's a partnership. The ego is the expert on earthly sensory bodily matters, the spirit is not. Nothing we have in our makeup is a mistake, it's all perfect, it's just that we have forgotten this partnership. We are disconnected from it. It a matter of remembering.

Nice summary Carmen! All I can do is nod my head and say "yep".

[Ceedub]

There have been so many good posts on this thread lately. It has been made aparent that understanding language is essential to understanding the topic at hand. Introducing the Tower of Babel archtype, or rather Orwellian language concerns and the ideas of Gurdjieeff, are very timely additions to the conversation. I am also delighted that Lao Tzu has become a centerpiece of this discussion. Considering language manipulation and limitation prompted me to dust off the several translations of Tao Teh Ching sitting about the shelves here.

I was first concerned that the "those who know" quote was at risk of being oversimplified especially regarding the choice of the word "talk". There seems to be nuance between the idea of talking and the idea of written or vocal communication or communication in general. Checking the different translations I have, I was reminded how strikingly different they are. Different passages seem to carry whole different meanings in the various translations. One translation uses "talk" while another uses "speak" for example, which have subtle differences in association I think. Both are distinct from the bare concept of choosing to use language to teach or not.

There is also some subtlety in context as well. Perhaps, given the focus the quote has received it is time to quote verse 56 in full. I quote from the Feng/English translation:

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 honor and disgrace.
This therefore is the highest state of man.

So in the broader context it is more a poetic expression about "primal union" and "the highest state of man" rather than a simple statement of fact regarding teachers and talkers. Works of great wisdom like the Tao Teh Ching are best appreciated if they are revisited through out the course of the student's development and the good student will find new meaning on each visit. Well I might as well quote the Wu translation while I'm at it:

He who knows does not speak.
He who speaks does not know.

Block all the passages!
Shut all the doors!
Blunt all edges!
Untie all tangles!
Harmonize all lights!
Unite the world into one whole!
This is called the Mystical Whole,
Which you cannot court after nor shun,
Benefit nor harm, honour nor humble.

Therefore, it is the Highest of the world.

Verse 56, Wu

The first thing I notice is the apparent difference between "blunting" and "Tempering all sharpness", and the difference between "mask your brightness" and "harmonize all lights". So we can see the tower of Babel influencing the transmission of wisdom here. This alone should give the reader pause before they take anything too literally or try and understand such things through the mind alone.

While flipping through these books, literally flipping the pages and letting them fall open as they will, I came across a couple of other on topic gems:

Keep your mouth shut,
Guard the senses,
And life is ever full.
Open your mouth,
Always be busy,
And life is beyond hope.

Verse 52, Feng/English, excerpt

Truthful words are not beautiful.
Beautiful words are not truthful.
Good men do not argue.
Those who argue are not good.
Those who know are not learned.
The learned do not know.

Verse 81, Feng/English, excerpt

Compare to the Wu translation:

Sincere words are not sweet,
Sweet words are not sincere.
Good men are not argumentative,
The argumentative are not good.
The wise are not erudite,
The erudite are not wise.

Verse 81, Wu, excerpt

What is a good man?
A teacher of a bad man.
What is a bad man?
A good man's charge.
If the teacher is not respected,
And the student not cared for,
Confusion will arise, however clever one is.
This is the crux of mystery.

Verse 27 Feng/English excerpt

Compare to Wu:

Hence, good men are teachers of bad men,
While bad men are the charge of good men.
Not to revere one's teacher.
Not to cherish one's charge,
Is to be on the wrong road, however intelligent one may be.
This is an essential tenet of the Tao.

Verse 27, Wu, excerpt

The Tao is elusive and intangible.

Verse 21, Feng/English, excerpt

Appologies for being a bit of a bore, I just wanted to hang a light over the centerpiece. Now back to the real conversation which is far more interesting than picking over Lao Tzu.

CW

[Rahkyt]

I haven't read the Tao in a while. I remember pondering over the text we've been talking about for quite a while. I've mentioned in other threads how the Buddha didn't preach. He answered questions. He spoke when spoken to and directly to the point. He also didn't answer some questions. He chose silence. The wise choose silence. When they don't have anything to say, they don't talk. He and others represent the epitome of this type of development, how the personality becomes a reflection of one's inner state at a certain point.

Words remain power. The vibrations they create are actually a form of energy, a waveform that can carry the suble energy of the emotions to the intended target(s).

You don't talk just to talk. You talk for a purpose. You teach for a purpose.

Wasted words can be harmful and indicative of a mind prone to discursiveness or overly emotional states.

[Ceedub]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)
I haven't read the Tao in a while. I remember pondering over the text we've been talking about for quite a while. I've mentioned in other threads how the Buddha didn't preach. He answered questions. He spoke when spoken to and directly to the point. He also didn't answer some questions. He chose silence. The wise choose silence. When they don't have anything to say, they don't talk. He and others represent the epitome of this type of development, how the personality becomes a reflection of one's inner state at a certain point.

Words remain power. The vibrations they create are actually a form of energy, a waveform that can carry the suble energy of the emotions to the intended target(s).

You don't talk just to talk. You talk for a purpose. You teach for a purpose.

Wasted words can be harmful and indicative of a mind prone to discursiveness or overly emotional states.

Wise words indeed. I think Buddha is kind of the symbol for the archtype of the great teacher. If a student were to ask one such as Buddha if they had their lesson correct, or about some Truth or other the answer, if not silence or a whack with a stick would likely be "what is mu?" A good teacher will not rob a student of discovery with their words.

[Fred Steeves]

Actually CW, I think you may have just opened up a whole new dimension to this conversation. Thank you for that! The whole reason I chose to re-open this subject, was that I can see pretty clearly now that there is some sort of communication breakdown between supposed "followers of teachers", and "non-followers of teachers". It looks to be a false debate to me, but how to settle a false debate, with language that is wide open to interpretation? Especially this generic type written word.

Your examples are very pertinent. I always like the example of did Yeshua supposedly say "I am THE Son of God", or "I am A son of God". Big difference huh? My thinking is that the written, passed down words from Masters of days gone by are of immeasurable value, right up until the point to where they aren't any more. And to boot, this is exactly as they intended.

I've read through my version of "The Kybalion" 4 times I think it is now, and each time I saw things that somehow weren't there before.(LOL) Just lately am I beginning to comprehend why Hermes, upon being asked a certain question, answered with nothing but his finger crossing his lips, accompanied with "shhhhhh".

Passed down wisdom can prepare the student for their real education/remembrance, and nothing more IMHO. And thankfully that is still around, for the higher truths to be sifted through by the occassional curious, and thus homesick soul, seeking a starting gate for the Great Return!

Please tell me (I mean anyone), are these ancient truths there just to lead us to a certain destination, or a brand new beginning?

So here I guess is what I'm trying to get across. I've read books, listened to the interviews of the "big shots", watched the documentaries by the Gregg Braden's and what have you, and not a one of them could teach me how to notice what a gentle breeze is telling me, by the way it hits my skin just so. Are you with me? All that studying can prepare the student to be of mind to accept...Whatever...That...Is... But it cannot take them by the hand to the bull's eye of their inner truth. That is necessarily a solitary journey.

I know it's alredy been said here, but maybe it's worth reiterirating. Being a teacher should be as brief of a service to another as possible, and then of course the teacher is humbled by the lesson of "teaching". If the teacher was not humbled by their service, then the student has been mislead. There's a pattern developing here isn't there?

Hmmmmm...

[mariposafe]

Posted by Ceedub (here)
....
I was first concerned that the "those who know" quote was at risk of being oversimplified especially regarding the choice of the word "talk". There seems to be nuance between the idea of talking and the idea of written or vocal communication or communication in general. Checking the different translations I have, I was reminded how strikingly different they are. Different passages seem to carry whole different meanings in the various translations. ....

An excellent post !!

I'll elaborate a little on your discovery, if I may ......

Translating between different languages is never an exact science, especially when we're translating languages from different families, languages with radically different structure, grammar and, importantly, world view. The Dao De Jing was written in ancient Chinese, which is written with an economy of style that is bemusing to the likes of you and I. Most Chinese people struggle with the Dao De Jing, so it's no easy task for a foreigner to make an accurate translation. That said, I've found that it needs to be read with the right brain, i.e. the non-logical, non-rational mind. It also needs to be read with the heart, and meditated on. Even then, there are passages which remain quite elusive, which I suppose is why it annoys so many people and they discard it as some sort of gibberish. Note that the subtle nuances in the meaning of speak and talk don't exist in Chinese, so neither translation is "wrong".

OK, so passage 56 actually says (in simplified script) this ....

知者不言, 言者不知 (zhi zhe bu yan, yan zhe bu zhi)

zhi means know; yan, in modern Chinese simply means word, in ancient Chinese it also meant to talk; bu means not; zhe is a verbal suffix meaning "a person who".

Which gives us - "know (person who) not word, word (person who) not know - So you get my point !!

Delving into the Do De Jing in order to improve my understanding of the language is a constant joy, and frustration

I'm glad you've got several tarnslations Ceedub, that's by far the best approach, unless you can read Chinese of course ! I only have one at the moment, which is a leeeetle too analytical for my mind, and it loses some of the poetry.

[Rahkyt]

There are a lot of translations on the net. Here's an interesting one:

56.

Those who know don't like to say
Those who say don't know
Close the mouth and guard the senses
You'll see more than what's on show

Untie tangles, dim the glare
Dull the sharp and join the dust
Abide in primal unity
And then do what you must

You cannot hold it or let go
It can't be blamed or praised
In all-embracing oneness
Be astonished and amazed

Here's a link to a page with many online versions of the Tao.

[mariposafe]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)
There are a lot of translations on the net. Here's an interesting one:

56.

Those who know don't like to say
Those who say don't know
Close the mouth and guard the senses
You'll see more than what's on show

Untie tangles, dim the glare
Dull the sharp and join the dust
Abide in primal unity
And then do what you must

You cannot hold it or let go
It can't be blamed or praised
In all-embracing oneness
Be astonished and amazed

Here's a link to a page with many online versions of the Tao.

The problem with that one is that ..
a) line 1 is not a faithful representation of the original, which contains nothing about "liking",
b) none of the rest of it bears any resemblance to what's being said, and
c) typical new age here - it's been made to rhyme in English !!!!

So while I value your contribution, this is a typical attempt (not by you Rahkyt) by someone to "disneyfy" a beautiful poetical truth.

Some interesting translations on the provided link - all goes to show how difficult it is to really pin it down. I stick by what I said this morning - read it with your heart, and meditate upon it.

[Sebastion]

It didn't take me long after I started my one and only thread on Avalon to realize some things, understandings, nuances of thought, etc, cannot be conveyed through the use of words regardless of language. Language is severely limited and limiting in many instances.

There are a number of good wordsmiths on this forum and I envy their ability to write as clearly as they do. I have noted that even when two or more people have similar experiences, their descriptions can be vastly different in the wording of it.

[Ceedub]

Posted by mariposafe (here)

Posted by Ceedub (here)
....
I was first concerned that the "those who know" quote was at risk of being oversimplified especially regarding the choice of the word "talk". There seems to be nuance between the idea of talking and the idea of written or vocal communication or communication in general. Checking the different translations I have, I was reminded how strikingly different they are. Different passages seem to carry whole different meanings in the various translations. ....

An excellent post !!

I'll elaborate a little on your discovery, if I may ......

Translating between different languages is never an exact science, especially when we're translating languages from different families, languages with radically different structure, grammar and, importantly, world view. The Dao De Jing was written in ancient Chinese, which is written with an economy of style that is bemusing to the likes of you and I. Most Chinese people struggle with the Dao De Jing, so it's no easy task for a foreigner to make an accurate translation. That said, I've found that it needs to be read with the right brain, i.e. the non-logical, non-rational mind. It also needs to be read with the heart, and meditated on. Even then, there are passages which remain quite elusive, which I suppose is why it annoys so many people and they discard it as some sort of gibberish. Note that the subtle nuances in the meaning of speak and talk don't exist in Chinese, so neither translation is "wrong".

OK, so passage 56 actually says (in simplified script) this ....

知者不言, 言者不知 (zhi zhe bu yan, yan zhe bu zhi)

zhi means know; yan, in modern Chinese simply means word, in ancient Chinese it also meant to talk; bu means not; zhe is a verbal suffix meaning "a person who".

Which gives us - "know (person who) not word, word (person who) not know - So you get my point !!

Delving into the Do De Jing in order to improve my understanding of the language is a constant joy, and frustration

I'm glad you've got several tarnslations Ceedub, that's by far the best approach, unless you can read Chinese of course ! I only have one at the moment, which is a leeeetle too analytical for my mind, and it loses some of the poetry.

Ha! Excellent, now we're talking!

What a gift to have a teacher in this conversation with such knowledge. Much Gratitude Mariposafe.

CW

[pie'n'eal]

A teacher is anything we learn something from.
A student is someone who will learn from everything.
An idiot learns nothing.

[Fred Steeves]

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
An idiot learns nothing.

Until they atleast learn that they are an idiot that is.

[Dorjezigzag]

The direction the thread has encouraged me to look back at a dissertation I wrote on the shamanic qualities of film and TV in the late 90s. I was lucky that my tutor was a practising witch who could appreciate where I was coming from, although she had different beliefs she could appreciate my viewpoints. Normally academia would have laughed at a work that sources Castaneda, Burroughs and various magical texts.

I have seen so many people whose essence has been smothered by academia as can happen with some so called spiritual groups who I believe would be more correctly defined as cults.
Anyway I have included this excerpt because of the current translations considerations from ancient Chinese to English. I would be interested if mariposafe could confirm the dyslexia statement I have made, which was not based on experience but taken from scientific papers.

William Boroughs the experimental artist, film- maker and writer had a keen and sympathetic interest in shamanic ways of perception. Like Artaud who saw theatre as a potential disease, Boroughs saw language as a virus; sharing Artauds belief that language and the spoken word made mankind slaves to the linear verbal experience at the expense of non-verbal experience.
He was interested in finding out what words are and how they function.
‘They become images when written down, but images of words repeated in the mind and not the image of the thing itself.’

Boroughs was fascinated by more pictorial, character based languages such as Ancient Mayan, Egyptian and modern day Chinese, as these have a stronger connection with the image. In the West we have totally lost this link. Many people relate the outbreak of the previously undiagnosed affliction called dyslexia with the widespread introduction of the image-based medium of television. ‘Ninety percent of language centres normally reside in the left hemisphere of right-handed people. In the right-handed dyslexic, the distribution is a more balanced 80/20 or 70/30.’ Although we cannot be sure dyslexia was not always with us, just undiagnosed; is it mere coincidence it exploded as television became widespread and people began to use the right side of the brain more. Unsurprisingly, in ideographic China, no cases of dyslexia have been diagnosed.

Borough’s believed that the word had achieved a state of stable symbiosis with the host, though this symbiotic relationship is now breaking down. Language is the means of control of organisations that benefit from our compliance such as corporations and governments. As Artaud and certain films attempt to connect us with a more direct symbolic language, Borough’s attempted the same with writing.

Interestingly I also wrote a lot about ‘silent’ film, which I perceived as having many shamanic qualities.

[Ceedub]

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
An idiot learns nothing.

Until they atleast learn that they are an idiot that is.

To realize that our knowledge is ignorance,
This is a noble insight.
To regard our ignorance as knowledge,
This is mental sickness.

Only when we are sick of our sickness
Shall we cease to be sick.
The Sage is not sick, being sick of sickness;
This is the secret of health.

Verse 71, Wu
I really must stop quoting Lao Tzu. Don't worry, I'll get it out of my system soon, but the book just falls open to the needed verse every time.

[Jenci]

Posted by Sebastion (here)
It didn't take me long after I started my one and only thread on Avalon to realize some things, understandings, nuances of thought, etc, cannot be conveyed through the use of words regardless of language. Language is severely limited and limiting in many instances.

There are a number of good wordsmiths on this forum and I envy their ability to write as clearly as they do. I have noted that even when two or more people have similar experiences, their descriptions can be vastly different in the wording of it.

This is very true, Sebastion and has been my experience too.

Jeanette

[Jenci]

We perceive life through filters.

Our filters are individual and are based on our conditioning, beliefs, ideas, concepts, moods, fears, desires etc..... so when someone speaks to us using words we perceive the words through our filters which tell us what the words mean.

These filters are the ego movement of grasping and resisting.


For example the teacher, when describing the emptiness which is our true nature, may use the word "space".

A student who has agoraphobia will immediately resist this idea as the word "space" will be filtered through their fear.

A student who has claustrophobia will immediately grasp this idea as the word "space" will be filtered through their experience of seeking comfort in it.

On the other hand the teacher may use the word "God" to describe our true nature and the student with a religious upbringing will cause them to either grasp or resist the concept of God they have grown up with.


So words have their limitations in teaching and will be understood differently.


Awakening is a process of dissolving all these ego grasping/resisting filters so that the perception of the truth is clarity.


Jeanette

[21CC]

It happens all the time
Meanings are compromised
For the sake of the rhyme

[Unified Serenity]

The first step to wisdom


I want to learn


The first step to Divinity


Love

[pie'n'eal]

The True Teacher.

In the quiet of a devotional mind,
the aspirant is blessed with clarity
to inspire.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

The wise knows nothing.
An idiot knows nothing.
A student isn't sure who is who.

[Rahkyt]

Posted by Jenci (here)
Awakening is a process of dissolving all these ego grasping/resisting filters so that the perception of the truth is clarity.

This is a simple truth but we - and so many others throughout history - try to use so many words to describe it to help people understand what it is. I'm coming quickly to the conclusion that the Buddha was right to be reticent in teaching it. Only those who are 'almost there' can get it. The rest intellectualize at best, which only results in further obscurations.

The simplest language is best. The shortest, with the fewest and most basic of words. Which, again, is why I think teaching in parables is what all of the wisest have done, do and will continue to do.

EDIT:

In relation to the language issues currently on the table, by teaching in parables the right brain is engaged, the visual cortex and imagery, which brings imagination into the teaching context, which can lead to deeper understanding and gnosis.