Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RICHARD: It would be more conducive to a mutual understanding – and less repetitive – if you could move past this ‘he who knows does not speak’ fixation. The man who you like to quote clearly made no secret that he knows ... and he spoke for sixty-plus years (as did the man who first penned that pithy aphorism).

RESPONDENT: It was Lao Tzu who originated: ‘those who know don’t speak; those who speak don’t know’.

RICHARD: Yes, there are at least 48 translations into English, which have slight variations on your version. Viz.:

• ‘She who knows does not speak. She who speaks does not know . – Translated by Charles Muller Revised, July 1997.
• ‘Those who know the natural way have no need of boasting, whilst those who know but little, may be heard most frequently; thus, the sage says little, if anything at all. – Translated by Stan Rosenthal, UK. .
• ‘Who understands does not preach; Who preaches does not understand. – The GNL Tao Te Ching Copyright © 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 Peter A. Merel.
• ‘Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know. – Translated by S. Mitchell.
• ‘He who knows does not speak; He who speaks does not know. – Translated by Lin Yutang; 1976.

What I have always found amusing is: who first spoke these words of wisdom? Surely not ‘he who knows’ because ‘he who knows does not speak’. Therefore, these ‘words of wisdom’ were spoken by ‘he who speaks’ and as ‘he who speaks does not know’ these words are not worth anything because he knows not of what he speaks.

RESPONDENT: Are you saying Lao Tzu spoke for sixty plus years – surely you are not (?).

RICHARD: Why not? Mr Lao Tzu could easily have spoken for sixty plus years (if he lived at all) for legend has it that he was an old man when he penned what is now known as ‘The Tao Te Ching’. (One meaning of the words ‘Lao Tzu’ is ‘Old Man’ which, in the context of teaching and learning, also means ‘master’ or ‘scholar’ (compared with ‘pupil’ or ‘student’) and the same two characters which form the Chinese ‘Lao Tzu’, form the words ‘old scholar’ in Japanese and are pronounced as ‘Roshi’). To put it all in context, it helps to understand the origins of ‘The Tao Te Ching’: in its original form, ‘The Tao Te Ching’ consisted of eighty-one short chapters, these being arranged in two sections, known as the ‘Tao Ching’ and the ‘Te Ching’ (anybody who has read both the ‘I Ching’ and the ‘Tao Te Ching’ will readily appreciate from many of Mr. Lao Tzu’s statements that he was certainly well versed in the concepts of ‘I Ching’ (‘Book of Changes’) and accepted its major precept, that all things are always in a state or process of change). The first of these sections was comprised of thirty-seven chapters, and the second of forty-four chapters. The length of the original work was approximately five thousand characters written on bamboo strips or slats bound together to form two scrolls, somewhat like a venetian blind with vertical slats, which were a common form of ‘record’ in the period (‘The Period of the Warring States’) that Mr. Lao Tzu is said to have lived. However, it is not known with absolute certainty that Mr. Lao Tzu actually lived during the period of the warring states ... even the biography of Mr. Lao Tzu, which may be found in the ‘Historical Records’ (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch’ien (second century B.C.), is not without its inconsistencies. Be that as it may, this record describes Mr. Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of Chou, and further states that he is said to have personally instructed Mr. Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius). According to legend, it is said that on his retirement from public office, Mr. Lao Tzu headed west, and that the guardian of the pass to the state of Ch’in requested that he write a treatise on ‘The Tao’ before departing. It is then that Mr. Lao Tzu is supposed to have sat for two days, in which time he wrote the ‘Tao Te Ching’, after which he left, some writers stating that he was never heard of again, others describing his ascent to heaven in the form of a magnificent dragon. It is known that the keeper of the pass was a well known Taoist of the period named Mr. Yin Hsi (also referred to as ‘Mr. Kwan Yin’) and, as a Taoist, he was familiar with the teachings of Mr. Lao Tzu even though, as he himself is supposed to have told the old philosopher, because of the nature of his work he had not been able to avail himself of personal tuition from the master. Thus Mr. Lao Tzu was well known in his own province, if not nationally, else Mr. Yin Hsi would not have recognised the figure of Mr. Lao Tzu or his name and would not have made his request to that particular traveller.

Therefore, ‘if’ he lived at all and ‘if’ he instructed Mr. Kung Fu Tzu and ‘if’ Mr. Yin Hsi knew of him and his work and ‘if’ he were an old man when he retired then he certainly did disseminate his wisdom for many, many years ... and thus did not heed his own advice – ‘he who knows does not speak’ – like all the enlightened masters down through the ages. It is a case of ‘do as I say and not do as I do’ with virtually all Saints and Sages, Gurus and God-Men, Masters and Messiahs, Avatars and Saviours.

RESPONDENT: It was Lao Tzu who originated: ‘those who know don’t speak; those who speak don’t know’.

RICHARD: Yes, there are at least 48 translations into English, which have slight variations on your version.

RESPONDENT: The way I’ve heard it is that he was going off into the wilderness, sick at heart over the ways of man, and the gatekeeper influenced him to record his wisdom for prosperity.

RICHARD: Hmm ... a person who is ‘sick at heart over the ways of man’ could hardly be said to be operating from clarity and purity, eh? An intelligence tethered by feelings of a nauseous sorrow is a crippled intelligence ... no wonder he penned such pithy aphorisms as ‘those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’.

He probably had nothing better to say.

RESPONDENT: In my reading of the thing, he is saying it is not that one does not speak at all, but one speaks hesitantly, sceptically – because one is aware of the indescribable miraculousness of Life.

RICHARD: Do you mean that one speaks tentatively because real knowledge is unobtainable (Pyrrhonic Scepticism) or that one speaks with diffidence because of a doubting disposition (Chronic Scepticism)? Or was the basis of his unspeakable wisdom – that which would ostensibly bring about peace on earth – a humble: ‘I don’t know’?

RESPONDENT: K once said: ‘If you label me; you negate me’ (substitute any noun for ‘me’).

RICHARD: Hmm ... I did not realise how touchy he was. When I was but a lad in grade-school I quickly learnt the lesson of that doggerel ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me’. These days, nobody – nobody whatsoever – can negate me or diminish me in any way, shape or form.

RESPONDENT: How about: ‘if you label x, you negate x’.

RICHARD: No way. I am not caught up in words ... when I label (which I do often) I label the image that the person is presenting and defending and thus send it to the trash bin where it belongs. I negate their image like all get-out ... then the actual person is freed to be here ... now.

RESPONDENT: If you notice, Lao Tzu spoke poetically, with the heart and mind and not just the divided intellect.

RICHARD: Aye ... and thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides roll on down through the centuries unabated.

RESPONDENT: Are you saying Lao Tzu spoke for sixty plus years – surely you are not (?).

RICHARD: Why not? Mr Lao Tzu could easily have spoken for sixty plus years (if he lived at all) for legend has it that he was an old man when he penned what is now known as ‘The Tao Te Ching’ ... <SNIP>... Therefore, ‘if’ he lived at all and ‘if’ he instructed Mr. Kung Fu Tzu and ‘if’ Mr. Yin Hsi knew of him and his work and ‘if’ he were an old man when he retired then he certainly did disseminate his wisdom for many, many years ... and thus did not heed his own advice – ‘he who knows does not speak’ – like all the enlightened masters down through the ages. It is a case of ‘do as I say and not do as I do’ with virtually all Saints and Sages, Gurus and God-Men, Masters and Messiahs, Avatars and Saviours.

RESPONDENT: I think you are trying to force Mr Lao Tzu into a classification in which his words really do not fit.

RICHARD: Methinks you will find that I am not. I am taking those words you posted at face-value (‘those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’) for that is the version which is publicly and popularly known and therefore is the ‘poetry’ that influences people the most (what I consider is the more correct translation I discuss later (see further below). What Mr Lao Tzu really wrote (if he lived at all) will never be known for sure (like all ‘Ancient Wisdom’) and what he really meant by whatever he wrote (if he wrote anything at all) will never be known either (not that it would be worth knowing). But the poetic image represented by ‘those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’ lives on. Therefore it is eminently worthy of examination and breakthrough.

*

RESPONDENT: In my reading of the thing [‘those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’], he is saying it is not that one does not speak at all, but one speaks hesitantly, sceptically – because one is aware of the indescribable miraculousness of Life.

RICHARD: Do you mean that one speaks tentatively because real knowledge is unobtainable (Pyrrhonic Scepticism) or that one speaks with diffidence because of a doubting disposition (Chronic Scepticism)? Or was the basis of his unspeakable wisdom – that which would ostensibly bring about peace on earth – a humble: ‘I don’t know’?

RESPONDENT: It is simply that the description is not the described and that the sage is aware of this simple truth.

RICHARD: In other words: the Truth can be realised but it cannot be described because the nature, character, disposition or quality of the Truth is unintelligible in that it cannot be perceived, comprehended, understood, grasped and established distinctly and unambiguously in an unmistakeable manner? Which means that confusion reigns supreme? Which means that Mr Lao Tzu is revered by millions for being able to realise something – that which would ostensibly bring about peace on earth – but he could not perceive, comprehend, understand, grasp or establish it distinctly and unambiguously and in an unmistakeable manner so as to communicate it to his fellow human beings? Thus 2,500 years have rolled on by since he coalesced the vapours ... and countless millions have suffered because of his ineptitude?

Or is it the ineffectiveness of ‘The Truth’ to bring about a liveable peace on earth?

RESPONDENT: If you notice, Lao Tzu spoke poetically, with the heart and mind and not just the divided intellect.

RICHARD: Aye ... and thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides roll on down through the centuries unabated.

RESPONDENT: Forgive me (as this will require the use of your extinct imagination), but if you could go back in time and counsel the old man (Lao Tzu), what would be your advice for him?

RICHARD: I have no need of imagination to explore what would be said in the context of an hypothetical situation because I would say the self-same thing that I am saying now. Viz.: The blame for the continuation of human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although having sufficient courage to proceed into the Unknown, stopped short of the final goal ... the Unknowable. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwilling to relinquish the Self or Spirit ... and an ego-less Self or Spirit is still an identity, nevertheless. In spite of the glamour and the glory of the Altered State Of Consciousness, closer examination reveals that these ‘Great’ persons had – and have – feet of clay. Bewitched and beguiled by the promise of majesty and mystery, they have led humankind astray. Preaching submission or supplication they keep a benighted ‘humanity’ in appalling tribulation and distress. The death of the ego is not sufficient: the extinction of the identity in its entirety is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign over all and everyone. When the ego dies, the separated identity dissolves into Oneness ... I am Everything and Everything is Me. The eyes seeing is Me looking at Me. I am The Absolute and The Absolute is Me. But beyond Me – beyond The Absolute – lies the actual ... and the actual is already always here now. In actuality there is no ‘Me’ and/or ‘The Absolute’. When the soul dies the need for oneness – unitary perception – dissolves ... as does any ‘otherness’.

Of course I would phrase it in the terminology current in that era and in that culture ... I would speak the jargon.

RESPONDENT: I think you are trying to force-t Mr Lao Tzu into a classification in which his words really do not fit. Let us agree to disagree.

RICHARD: Methinks you will find that I am not ‘trying to force-t Mr Lao Tzu into a classification in which his words really do not fit’. I am taking those words you posted at face-value (‘those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’) for that is the version which is publicly and popularly known and therefore is the ‘poetry’ that influences people the most. What Mr Lao Tzu really wrote (if he lived at all) will never be known for sure (like all ‘Ancient Wisdom’) and what he really meant by whatever he wrote (if he wrote anything at all) will never be known either (not that it would be worth knowing). But the poetic image represented by ‘those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’ lives on. Therefore it is eminently worthy of examination and breakthrough. Why do you wish to ‘agree to disagree’? Can you not join in on an exploration and discovery? Do you wish to but endlessly seek in a poetic waste-land ... and never find?