even the originator of the quote (Lao Tzu) didn't stop speaking as is evident from his Tao Te Ching. But, is the container the originator of truth, of such a seemingly absurd quote, is it the man/body labeled as Lao Tzu that brings such deep wisdom form its impermanent self?
Man in its arrogance and vanity believes such foolishness, such ignorance all because of ones own indolence!
Man forgets that he is simply a user of the abilities in which he did not create, his gift of thinking, to produce thoughts, with which he reaps the reward of his own arrogance.
Truth is simple, life is not complex, simply observe nature to see this truth. Ours is not to figure out how this and why that of the workings of life but to live it, to be it, to be one with nature, with existence.
Come to know you don't know, then you'll stop believing you know and for once listen in silence, in which, truth is revealed!
Since truth is (revealed) innately, within silence, then it cannot be spoken (conveyed) in words, thus those who know do not speak but to point towards it, to guide, while those who think they know speak about what they believe, hence they do not know..
Those who know do not speak, Those who speak do not know! its really this frigin simple!
I'm not too convinced about that quote.
True sages (Adya, Tolle, etc) can speak at length on this subject
And simply being mute doesn't mean anything
of course there are plenty of people who talk and talk and talk, and still never say anything of substance
What is the absolute definition of true?
Why would a "true" sage choose to be mute? What does it cause the seeker to do?
People would come and ask the Buddha questions, he would not answer them but tell them to just sit with him for two years in silence and after that year he would give them all the answers. Those that sat in silence for two years had no more questions, why?
"Warrior am I and from the battle I emerge Triumphant"
Post by withinsilence on Sept 23, 2018 13:55:08 GMT
Writing this 6 years later, and still I see no time. Why? Because its a word pointing to something, an abstraction, and abstractions cannot be absolute.
Time has no power of its own, just like the words cake, coffee and water cannot be tasted, smelled or drank, so time also cannot be seen, moved or given. Bring me a jar of time. Move time forward, or retard it. Stop time, or start it. These cannot be done because you cannot manipulate that which doesn't exist.
Time implies a starting and stopping, but there is no such thing as starting or stopping in the now, all life is an ever continuous movement, moment-um, we count time as 1 one thousand 2 one thousand 3 one thousand etc. but existence was ever moving before we started with one and it doesn't stop between the 1 and the 2 or the 3, there is no pause to life, no beginning or ending, only ever continuous change and time is not the power that causes change, rather, time is a tool we use to measure change, to break down that which is in fact whole into so many fragments so we can apply some meaning to it.
Time is a lie the infinite has conjured up to uphold the story it tells itself about who it believes it self to be, as it continues to play the eternal game of hide and seek, and the only player in this game is itself. We are all the self, our whole lives pretending to be something we're not, hiding away from the truth of who we've always been. This is Maya of mind.
That which is cannot know itself in comparison to anything else, as It is all there is, it is every thing and every thing is it, thus it cannot have any knowledge of its own existence. The closest humans can come to it is what we label with the words; void, silence, abyss, nothingness, emptiness, pure choiceness awareness (Krishnamurti) etc. Then, eventually, even all words get absorbed into the void and return to silence from which they sprang. Shall we use words to describe that from which words arise? Shall we use abstraction to reveal that which causes abstractions? Can an abstraction be more valid than that which it points to?