Primal Purity asked Boundless, "Do you know Dao?"

"I do not," said Boundless.

Primal Purity asked Inaction, "Do you know Dao?"

"Yes, I do," said Inaction.

"Is there a way," asked Primal Purity, " to knowing Dao?"

"There is such a way," said Inaction.

"And what is it?" asked Primal Purity.

"I know," said Inaction, "that Dao honors and dishonors, binds and loosens. That is my way of knowing Dao."

Primal Purity repeated these words to No-Beginning and asked, "Which is right, the not-knowing of Boundless or the knowing of Inaction?"

No-Beginning answered, "Not-knowing is profound. Knowing is shallow. Not-knowing is internal. Knowing is external."

No-Beginning replied, "Dao cannot be heard. That which can be heard is not Dao. It cannot be seen. That which can be seen is not Dao. It cannot be told. That which can be told is not Dao. That which provides form is iteself fromless; hence Dao is nameless."

No-Beginning went on, "He who answers someone asking about Dao does not know Dao. Even if one hears about Dao, in truth he hears nothing about Dao. Concerning Dao, no questions are relevant, and neither are answers. To question the unquestionable is vain. To answer the unanswerable is trivial. And he who couples the vain with the trivial has no external perception of the connection and no internal perception of the primal cause_ he is not the one to ascend the holy mountain, nor the one who will vault into the great void."

Reference: Buber, M. (1991), Page, A. (trans), Chinese Tales: Zhuangzi [Chuangtzi], New Jersey: Humanities Press International. p77.

~