Knowledge and ignorance

[Guest guest]

Dear Veronica,

 

To answer youtr question, we must first see what exactly is meant by the terms

`knowledge' and `ignorance.'

 

Quoting from my book (see http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi):

 

(p.40-41)

 

Ignorance

 

`Ignorance' or `bondage' is the term traditionally used in the spiritual

context to describe the condition of the average person who is under the

illusion that the `self' exists as a separate entity.

 

The word `ignorance' (avidya, ajnana) used in this way does not refer to the

lack of any specific knowledge or information, which is the usual meaning of

the term. The actual meaning here is `delusion,' a wrong perspective, an

improper or distorted way of seeing things because of which things are seen

not as they are, but rather as they appear to be from a separate, individual

point of view. We do not see things as they are. We either accept or reject,

condemn or justify, identify with, compare, match with our own expectations.

In other words, we do not see things as they are, but as how they would affect

`me.' If we could just see things without the intrusion of the `me,' that is,

not from the viewpoint of a `me' (indeed, not from any viewpoint at all), that

would be seeing Reality.

 

Another word used more or less synonymously is maya, which is therefore often

translated as `illusion,' `delusion' or `ignorance.' But to be exact, maya

represents the cause of the illusion, and therefore denotes the entire process

by which symbolic thinking results in the `me'-illusion (Ch.1). On the

disappearance of avidya and maya, the world does not disappear (as is often

misunderstood), but is merely seen as it is, without distortion, in its

`suchness' (tathataa).

 

(p.44-46)

 

Knowledge - Conceptual, False and True

 

Used in the ordinary everyday sense, the word `knowledge' implies `temporal'

knowledge or information. Such knowledge involves time (hence temporal) and

memory. It can be taught and learnt. But, like the word `ignorance,' this word

too is used in a different sense in the spiritual context. This will be

discussed a little later.

 

However, the mere verbal knowledge of spirituality as learnt from the

scriptures or from the guru is, in fact, a form of temporal knowledge which can

be called `conceptual knowledge' because Enlightenment is still a concept for

such a person, not a reality. (Paroksha jnana, indirect knowledge, `second-hand'

knowledge or `hearsay' knowledge).

 

Conceptual knowledge (that is, knowledge gained by sravana, hearing), if

properly and intelligently acted upon (manana, nidhidhyaasana), leads to

the intellectual understanding of the situation, which, as we will describe in

Ch.8, is often the precursor of the intuitive understanding which constitutes

true Awakening.

 

But in some cases, the individual, after gaining mere conceptual knowledge,

feels that he has `arrived,' and gets the idea that he is Enlightened. This is

the condition we have called `false' knowledge. It is referred to in the

Ashtaavakra Samhita (XVI.10) and also by Jnaneshwar (Amritanubhav) and it is

said to be a subtle form of `ignorance' :

 

"...if the atman which is of the very nature of knowledge, conceives of itself

as knowledge, then that itself becomes its bondage" (Amritanubhav III-23. See

also VII-6, III.6,7,10).

 

`False' knowledge does not transform the person's life, and does not lead to

Liberation, for it does not change the motivation behind his actions (see

next chapter). If at all, it may make him more vain, with a sort of subtle

egoism which is more difficult to dislodge. Thus `false' knowledge is a trap

that the unwary can fall into, and may find it difficult to escape from.

 

The really Enlightened person never feels " `I' am Enlightened" (though if the

occasion demands, he may say so for convenience of speech). Believing that

there is an entity who is enlightened is the very antithesis of the phenomenon

of Enlightenment, for Enlightenment is itself the intuitive perception of the

absence of a separate entity.

 

The condition of the person in whom Enlightenment has occurred, has been

compared by Jnaneshwar to that of a grain of salt which went to measure the

depth of the ocean. But then it got dissolved in the water; so who was to

know the depth of the ocean? (Changdev pasashti v.46).

 

And Sant Tukaram wrote :

 

"the surface of the water is not separate from the water;

 

Just as gold gets a name by being made into an ornament, Tuka says, so are we."

 

`True' knowledge, which occurs with Enlightenment, is not really a form of

knowledge in the sense of information or memory. That is, it is not temporal

knowledge. It refers rather to the intuitive feel or understanding

(`apperception') of the whole situation (including the absence of the `I'

as a separate entity). It is a non-verbal, instantaneous understanding, which

cannot really be taught or learnt. It can only be roughly indicated or

pointed out. That is why the teaching of a guru is compared to a finger

pointing to the moon, not the moon itself. The word `knowledge' is really not

at all descriptive of the condition, which actually involves a sort of

direct awareness, like the way we are aware of our own existence.

 

In advaita terminology it is called aparoksha jnana - knowledge by direct

experience. The Buddha spoke of Vipassana meaning knowledge by seeing,

clear perception. It means to observe the reality in the right way, to observe

it as it is - not as it appears to be, coloured by belief, by imagination.

 

It must be emphasized that the word `intuitive' is used in this book to

denote a type of knowing which is instantaneous or rather timeless

(a-temporal), and not as in `woman's intuition' wherein it is used to denote

a sort of `sixth sense,' a vague feeling, hunch or foreboding. It is the

same type of knowing which Ken Wilber has called the `second mode of

knowing,' and which has been also variously called insight, prajna, etc.

 

(p.48)

 

With the advent of Enlightenment, both ignorance and conceptual knowledge are

said to disappear.

 

"Just as the fire, in the process of burning the camphor, extinguishes itself,

(leaving no residue, neither camphor nor fire), similarly doth take place the

mutual destruction of Ignorance and (conceptual) Knowledge."

 

(Jnaneshwar - Amritanubhav IV-5).

 

The true understanding is thus totally non-verbal, leaving no residue in the

form of verbal understanding.

 

-----------------

 

So now, you can see that conceptual knowledge and ignorance are the two polar

opposites (yin and the yang), whereas true (intuitive) `knowledge' is the Tao,

which is beyond both.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Nitin

 

--

Message: 1

Fri, 26 Nov 1999 02:21:17 PST

"D Hill" <bestisle

Re: Avadhuta Gita chapter 1 Verse 57

 

Veronica (D. Hill) wrote:

 

 

>Avadhuta Gita Chapter 1 Verse 57

>

>In the Atman there is neither knowledge nor ignorance nor the >combination

>of the two. He who always has this knowledge becomes >knowledge Itself and

>nothing else.

>

>(comments)

>

>Combination of the two - According to a Ritualistic school, knowledge and

>ignorance can coexist as we see both light and darkness in a firefly. In

>its view, a person can perform ritualistic action even after illumination.

>The school of Advaita Vedanta, however, does not agree with this. It says

>that knowledge and ignorance, like day and night, cannot coexist.

 

 

Does Advaita Vedanta really say that knowledge and ignorance cannot

co-exist? I find that somewhat unfathomable. After all, Advaita is all about

non-duality. Knowledge and ignorance, like day and night, are a duality. One

pair of the opposition has no meaning without the other. Either part alone

cannot not exist independently. I would say, then, that knowledge and

ignorance, like day and night, can not exist without the other.

 

This is one reason why I have been having a hard time comprehending Shri

Jaishankar when he writes that only the self-knowledge engendered by the

Vedas can dissolve ignorance. From what I understand, you can't have one

without the other. To experience the non-dual Self, one has to get away from

notions of both knowledge and ignorance. In other words, transcend the

illusion of duality or two-ness.

 

But this duality or mode of thinking in terms of dualities is just a

fabrication of the mind/intellect. In reality, there is just the non-dual

Brahman.

 

However, I wouldn't attempt to pass off this understanding as Advaita

Vedanta per se. Certainly, there is the influence of Advaita in it.

 

So, I would be interested in knowing what others conceive of as the

relationship between knowledge and ignorance, and how various Advaitans have

imaged the resolution of such dualities.

 

with love and joy

 

Veronica (D. Hill)

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Nitin Trasi wrote:

> Dear Veronica,

>

> To answer youtr question, we must first see what exactly is meant by the terms

`knowledge' and `ignorance.'

>

> Quoting from my book (see http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi):

>

> (p.40-41)

>

> [...] excellent material deleted

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Nitin

>

> --

 

 

namaste.

 

I think the explanation here is beautifully put, and very well answers,

as per my understanding, the difference between the intellectual knowledge

and Atma vidyA, in which we are having a very interesting discussion in

the past few weeks.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------