?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The Tao Is Tao (22) - Daily Tao

                                                   22
                                              True faith
                                                    is
                                            complete trust
                                      without understanding:
                                                                       It is to accept
                                                                             silence
                                                                             silently,

                                                                                 --Jos Stabbert



I cannot accept the first four lines without a clear understanding that they apply only with regard to the Tao:  not to what anyone says about the Tao or to anyone who claims to speak for the Tao.  Even the wisest sage must be rebuffed if he or she asks for blind faith (that is what is being described in the first four lines).  I think that blind faith is almost always bad faith and any human who asks for it is arrogant, presumptions, dangerous and unenlightened, no matter what her or his credentials may seem to be.

The poem is rescued by its last three lines: Faith is accepting silence silently.  Maybe not a total definition, but a good start.

Also posted at daily_tao The Tao Is Tao (22) - Daily Tao

Comments

( 15 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
bobby1933
May. 24th, 2016 03:34 am (UTC)
LOL
I still think
"trust but verify"
is sound advice,
no matter who gives it.

Thank you, my friend.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
bobby1933
May. 27th, 2016 08:16 am (UTC)
Not saying that faith in the unknown (and possibly unknowable) is never appropriate.
Mystery and mystigogery are different things
I do not put blind trust in people, books, or institutions
only in the Tao
(or whatever equivalency others may use.)
(Deleted comment)
bobby1933
May. 30th, 2016 06:33 am (UTC)
Not up for riddles
or things i can't understand and fourth reading.
(Deleted comment)
bobby1933
Jun. 2nd, 2016 08:11 pm (UTC)
Nice. But that former comment still evades me.
Since it was posed by a human,
i don't like being confused
since i don't know if the confusion is my lack of comprehension
or the other's inability to communicate
Or the degrees of difference in IQ or literacy
may be too great for me to leap
in a single bound.
amaebi
May. 24th, 2016 11:04 pm (UTC)
I think that faith is trust without complete understanding or without understanding being relevant. As we trust that our bodies will stay on the earth unless we apply energy to lift them above it for some small time. And that there's greaterand lesser, more fundamental and more pasted-on faith.
bobby1933
May. 27th, 2016 08:19 am (UTC)
The Godhead cannot be reached by understanding, but only by love.
Neither understanding nor love is what i would call FAITH.
amaebi
May. 27th, 2016 11:06 am (UTC)
"Reach"?
bobby1933
May. 27th, 2016 03:02 pm (UTC)
reach
Yes, a very bad choice of words, i suppose.
It is the divine that does the "acting." I receive.
But i think i no longer receive "passively."
Contemplation is my "reach."
amaebi
May. 27th, 2016 03:05 pm (UTC)
Re: reach
So what you intend is something like "contact" or "receive a touch from"?
bobby1933
May. 27th, 2016 06:18 pm (UTC)
Re: reach
"Contact" reminds me of that Jodie Foster movie that, i think, so beautifully expresses my relationship with the divine. It js a small child's painting for her Daddy plus something infinitely and inexpressably different.
amaebi
May. 28th, 2016 01:10 pm (UTC)
Re: reach
Mostly, I'm fascinated by how very different your divine is from mine. :D Thank you!
bobby1933
May. 28th, 2016 04:44 pm (UTC)
Re: reach
Yes, the words that we use to talk about the divine are very different. But that is in no way bothersome to me.

I am enough of a neo-Platonist to believe that the words i use to speak of the unspeakable are totally misleading, inaccurate, inadequate and should therefore be as few as possible. My description of the divine is no longer what it was when i wrote that comment (re Moses and the Shepherd)
amaebi
May. 28th, 2016 07:59 pm (UTC)
Re: reach
I certainly agree that human notions o the divine are at the very best almost surely partial. And also, that as a woman can seem to partners in different relationships with her, a very different person, how much more the divine. Partly, I suspect, through gracious adjustment on the part of the divine, partly on account of our tiny, biased sensory and comprehensory equipment.

But of course here I go producing words. Because I am Ineluctably Naughty. :D
bobby1933
May. 28th, 2016 08:10 pm (UTC)
Re: reach
:) :D
( 15 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

bobby1933
bobby1933

Latest Month

October 2017
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow