LA writes:
OK, but remember you asked for it… 
Several months ago a series of experiences led me back to chapter 47 of Tao Te Ching to re-examine my understanding of knowing. Just what was intellect and what was intelligence? It had dawned on me that I had been seeing the word “knowing†through western concepts and that I had missed true understanding of this chapter.
[i]Venture not beyond your doors to know the world;
Peer not outside your window to know the way-making (dao) of
Tian.
The farther one goes,
The less one knows.
It is for this reason that sages know without going anywhere out of
The ordinary,
Understand clearly without seeing anything out of the ordinary,
And get things done without doing anything out of the ordinary.[/i]
It wasn’t the first time I had tried discussing this chapter. I even started a thread almost a year ago to discuss it’s meaning but there was a crucial lack of understanding on my part, and it all revolved around the word “know“. In western thinking, we can know by simply reading a book. The authority of our knowing resides in the book. Much of our western education depends on the authority of books, and the people who write them. But in the sense of Tao, to know means to not only know what, but to know how, and to know when. Knowing is both experiential and local. Experiential in the sense that one’s interaction within an experience is part of the act of knowing, and local in the sense that it is our every day experiences that are the vital part of anything we would call “knowingâ€. In this sense, the Way is not discovered externally, but is made in the interaction between one’s self and their experiences. The knowing that comes from our experience is focusing on the how, what, and when things occur. That is the application of our intelligence, thus, “The farther one goes the less one knows.†That is external knowing and is intellect. It isn’t that things of intellect can’t be known. They can. A brochure describing the delights of southern Indian beaches is intellect until one experiences the sand beneath one’s feet, and then there is knowing.
And how does this relate to the idea of seeking? As LA suggested in her opening post, it is a matter of chosen focus; To look outward beyond our experiencing into intellect, or inwardly where that which is sought is the seeker themselves, which is intelligence gifted by consciousness. So should you ask me, what are you seeking? My answer is, nothing. Where are you going? No where. What are your goals? I have none. I have no need for these things. I remain awake, aware, and bring the best of my understanding to each experience as I may. My curiosity remains intact and my ‘doing’ reflects the focus of that curiosity. For the very first time I have grasped the understanding of ‘desire-less desire’.
I was much impressed by the statement in LA’s post that awareness comes when we are half awake, not analyzing, just remaining sensitive to the flow of experience. In our curiosity and interactive experiencing, we find the seeker within and become that which is all. We simply have to be receptive.
There is nothing naïve about this understanding, nor is it an ‘ignorance is bliss’ concept. On the contrary, it is an explicit description of the nature of true intelligence which rejects intellect and calls forth the utmost in our understanding as we say the word “knowâ€.
JT
