"No need to leave your door to know the whole world.
No need to peer through your windows to know the Way of
Heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.
Therefore the Sage knows without going.
Names without seeing.
And completes without doing a thing."
Please share your comments, explanations, and opinions.
JT
id like for that sage to give me a practical example of his immense ‘knowledge’
i think they are using the wrong words. what they indirectly refer to as knowledge is actually ‘bliss’ and ignorance is an easy way to get it.
i cant imagine any other practical use of this little quote.
It seems to me that what this is saying is that the greatest knowledge is within yourself, and the more information you recieve from external sources, the less easy it is to look into yourself and find knowledge.
Well, Futureman is right then. The idea that
‘information from outside sources is a bad thing when looking for knowledge’
is a crock, and it should be obvious that it’s a crock to anybody who actually thinks for a second instead of trying to sound mystical. Either the saying means something else entirely, or it’s junk.
I agree, how you would go about obtaining knowledge from within oneself is beyond me. Then again, I am no eastern mystic.
Let me just clear up that I was simply stating what I thought the riddle meant, not agreeing with it.
No doubt, NoelyG, no accusations here. I’d have to point out, that if you read around a bit here, you’ll notice that the idea of obtaining knowledge from ‘within oneself’ about spiritual matters is a popular one. It’s still bull, and honestly, I don’t know if it classifies as an idea, really. It’s more like a series of words that are fun to string together. 
Haha yes, I have noticed in general that it is quite ‘trendy’ to be mystical. I also can’t be convinced that these ideas have any depth.
I’ll just have to remain un-trendy
That’s about how I see it too. There’s certain ways things can be worded such that they seem to have meaning, and they draw the mind into thinking about them, but strictly speaking, they’re just gibberish. I think most mystic-talk, and certainly most Eastern-mystic talk falls into that category.
My interest is in esoteric Christianity and esoteric simply means “inner” so I don’t have any problem with it as far as it goes. I don’t believe it should be taken as denying the value of regular knowledge but instead stressing the value of another form of knowledge.
I’d like to ask uccisore and noel where you would get the personal answer for yourselves to the question: "Who am I? Would you search to find the answer from this knowledge you’ve acquired in your lives from outside or from a source inside yourself?
I can see how this can seem like complete bull… but it also makes sense to me. It depends on if you approach this quote with rationality or if you approach it with intuition(consult your pineal gland). I see rationality in itself as strictly perspective based and undependable.
I don’t think the poem is even talking about wisdom or knowledge as we know it. I think it’s talking about obtaining human or philosophical depth by your own means. For example, you may be very wise from being well read, but your ideas and passion about these ideas will still be a plagerism. Why not promote your own raw, personal spirituality?
But this whole arguement only works if having a “human” depth matters to you and if you believe in spirituality in the first place. Being humbly agnostic, I honestly have no idea how much credibility the quote deserves.
But think about this: your ability to rationalize things is given to you by your brain. Your brain will die, along with the memory of this rationality. How can we trust something that never really existed in the first place?
The quote, like my name… is three pounds of flax. Nothing less.
Hi Nick,
The question “Who am I?” can be a little ambiguous at times. It depends what it is referring to. If it is referring to my character, well I would say that my character has been shaped entirely by external influences. Sure I can reflect on my character and thus what sort of a person I am, but there is no escaping the fact that, as far as we know, the character has been developed by external influences.
Now, if you are referring to the “Who am I?” question of an immaterial soul, the question comes to rest on beliefs. Being a theist, I do believe in a soul which is the basis of an afterlife, but whether or not this soul interacts with the material body/mind is something I’m not sure about. I doubt it, but I doubt even more the ability to look inward and somehow learn about our soul from a source inside ourself.
Could you possibly define the ‘source inside yourself’ that you mentioned?
Hi Noel
The question “Who am I?” is not really ambiguous since it can only mean one thing. it is just difficult to isolate. It can’t mean your character since the question would have been: “What is your character?”
You have changed the question “Who am I” into “What is the soul” which is again a different question.
You are trying to anwer an internal question with external answers and rationalization. But “Who am I” has a definite meaning and is experiential. How can you “feel” “Who am I?”
Who or what can know the answer but you? The external world doesn’t know you. You may read explanations in a book but does this allow you to “Feel” “Who am I?” If an answer is possible it must come first from your emotions. Pondering is thinking with your emotions. Is such emotional knowledge learned or is it already known but lodged in the back of your presence somewhere?
So the source inside yourself is really the essence of you. It is just not comprehensible to your computer brain that you consider you. When you truly ponder, the effort is not from your computer brain asking a question which is just analysis but instead it is from your psychological living essence independent of of your computer mind or associative thought.
Pondering is the ancient activity that for some reason has fallen out of fashion that attempts to have access to this source. This knowledge is within and all the ancient traditions have attempted to help us reveal it to ourselves.
I’m sorry Nick, but this type talk was exactly what myself and Uccisore were talking about. I have encountered this “Who am I?” question not being about character, the soul etc. before. It is basically a ridiculous question.
Its quite easy to claim to have a “presence”, but what is a “presence” exactly? Is it something we can experience or know? Or is it just a word that is used to try and come across as mystical?
How do you actually ‘think’ with your emotions? Your emotions are states or moods part chemical, part mental, induced by external or physical interactions.
It is all very well and good to talk and think about the possibility of a ‘psychological living essence independent of of your computer mind or associative thought’, but how do we percieve such a thing exactly?
I am far from being convinced
Hi Noel
Wouldn’t it be better to say it is not your question rather than pronouncing it a ridiculous question? You don’t feel the question which is OK. However there may be some that might venture out alone on a clear night where the stars are plainly visible and look up at the vastness of the sky and wonder “Who am I” in all this? Such questions do not appear ridiculous to me.
You ask is presence something you can experience? I would say that a person really begins to experience as a human being in the state of presence. Our difference is how we acknowledge experience. We can experience as an animal which is fine and we can experience as a human being with presence which is also fine. It depends on what you want your experiences to mean. If you are content with them as they are, why look further?
A person thinks with their emotions by trying to “feel” a human psychological truth that doesn’t originate with their corrupt ego. The feeling associated with the experience of this quality of human truth is a completely different experience than our normal emotions of self justification. But again, this is only for those who have come to experience that something more real exists within them than their normal corrupt egotism.
The question for me is how to get out of my way more so that it can perceive me. You, as you believe you are, cannot appreciate what is more real in you. However, what is real can perceive the false if this infancy is allowed to live.
Don’t feel bad since you are in the majority. 
There is no reason to convince you. The spiritual search is only for those who thirst for it. Would it be right to try and shove a glass of water down someone’s throat? No. But if a thirsty person asked for water, it would be right to offer some provided we have something uncontaminated to give.
If “Who am I?” ever becomes a question for you, only then should you consider it. Before that it just does more harm than good by just mixing it more with negative emotions such as in ridicule. Better to stick with good scotch.
Hi JT,
Thank you for reminding me of this chapter. I haven’t read my copy for sometime and now that I’m reading it again, thank you, I’m understanding it in a way that I have never quite grasped before. This is the version that I have.
I have travelled extensively in my life. I have lived in exotic places, on islands in villages surrounded by rice fields, I have lived in cities, swam in oceans where sunlight penetrates, deep into the secret places of sea life, lay in shallow waters where phosphorus has danced all over my skin. I have cycled across mountains, climbed rocks, slept on beaches, woken up in the desert, been moonlight horse riding - been in places where children looked into my eyes and were looking into blue eyes for the first time. I have done all these things…now, all these experiences are nothing but memories. I’m not saying that I didn’t learn anything that all those experiences are not part of me, didn’t make me richer – they did, they are in me. I’m saying that what I learned is beautiful, has made me rich in knowledge of the world – not knowledge I have read in books but knowledge I have learned out of my own experience and still, none of it is worth anything in comparison to what I have learned since I began to stand still, since I began to listen to my conscience, the voice of my own heart, my guide, the master that lives in me. When we practice to listen to it, it speaks to us, telling us where to go, what to do, which way to turn, then the mind slowly slowly begins to find stillness and the heart becomes more prominent. I don’t know science, I don’t know philosophy, I don’t know religion, or politics or anything for that matter, but I know life and I’m beginning to know myself and with that comes knowledge of things that I could never have conceived of. Not knowledge but a knowing and an intuition…
We know the Way of Heaven, not by studying the scriptures or travelling or trying to figure stuff out intellectually, or gaining any experience outside of ourselves but by following our conscience. Our conscience is the bridge between ourselves and Heaven. “The more we go looking, the less we will find.†That I can attest to. I have found many things, but none of them will get me to Heaven.
“The wise know there is nowhere to go†– We are already there, Heaven exists within our hearts, right here and right now.
“They see by not looking – they act by just being†– They listen to their heart – naturally the heart knows what to do.
As for you Uccisore and your sidekick NoelyG, what kind of philosophers are you that you condemn an ancient thought, condemn an ancient wisdom before giving it any thought whatsoever, before even trying to understand what the writer is trying to express? Who taught you to condemn an idea before opening it up for discussion, before beginning from an open mind? You have preconceived ideas and you allow those illusions to master your thinking, you allow your immense potential in thinking, for you are both very smart, to be overshadowed by your limited perceptions that you have already formulated. You both appear to be very silly little boys, totally lacking in any real substance. I apologise if I these words offend you, but they are not meant to offend, they are meant to encourage you.
There’s a big difference between being a “sage” and the “wretched man”. It is only our corrupt ego that confuses the two.
I posted this section of the Tao because I saw much wisdom there that could be of immense value to those who seek spiritual understanding. In many ways, it cut’s behind much of the confusion that arises with the debates about knowing, faith, belief,…
For those who seek, perhaps there is something. For those who already know how it is, there is nothing.
Some are capable of entertaining the idea that there may be a difference between knowing and understanding, between mind and heart. Our relationship with that which is may reside in that idea.
JT
Tentative
This is really misleading, IMO, because it implies that understanding is the result of the heart.
I agree that it is an important part of understanding but true understanding occurs when the mind, heart, and senses function together in harmony. Understanding is the result of the collective efforts of these three sources of contact with life itself.
The emotions by themselves are subject to the same degenerating influences from our conceptualization as is the mind regardless of how we may wish to glorify them.
Nick,
There wasn’t anything misleading about my statement. There was no implication of either/or. It could only be misunderstood by those who refuse to consider anything BUT either or, and in that case, they had already dismissed what I had to say.
JT
Im not quite sure but I think part of the riddle may be…
What use is knowledge without wisdom.
Knowledge being information as free from human feeling as possible and wisdom being a little more artful and practical for human use.
Mabey the riddle is meant to question how many examples one needs of something to see what one might easilly see by applying human tools to what is directly around him.
like strategy, the will, logic, imagination, emotions, senses, dicsipline.
Of course mabey im reading a little bit too much into this, but the riddle doesnt say anything about that.