Can there be Knowledge without Belief and Conviction?

[Guest guest]

Can there be Knowledge without Belief and Conviction?

 

Knowledge and skills are basic tools to complete any task that we undertake.

There is a clear distinction between ‘real knowledge' (what we really know) and

‘knowledge in appearance' (what we believe that we know). The gap between ‘real

knowledge' and ‘knowledge in appearance' varies person to person. Our ignorance

is responsible for this gap.

 

My hypothesis contains the following statements:

(1) Belief is most essential for gaining knowledge.

(2) Knowledge will be knowledge in appearance.

(3) Real knowledge requires strong conviction on one's own belief.

(4) Truth is real knowledge without an iota of ignorance.

 

The entire Ramayana describes the greatness of Rama. Rama acquired the real

knowledge to become the Essence of Truth. Rama undertook different roles and

duties to establish Perfection. Most important, Rama never refused to break a

promise teach us the importance of Conviction.

Now let me ask the question within ourselves: Can there be Knowledge without

Belief and Conviction?

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The question is too broad to be answered concisely; especially as the

definitions of the words are not spelled out.

 

Knowledge can be discussed on three levels:

 

1. Sensory perception.

2. Metaphysical, understanding cause-effect relationships.

3. Self-knowledge; the indivisible/eternal/all-pervading awareness.

 

It can be asserted that for levels 1 & 3 belief and conviction are not

necessary; for level 2, yes. This is the realm of dharma, logic, etc.

 

The beauty of Advaita approach is its integration on all levels.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

>"Ram Chandran" <chandran

>advaitin

>"advaitin" <advaitin >

> Can there be Knowledge without Belief and Conviction?

>Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:35:29 -0400

>

>

>Can there be Knowledge without Belief and Conviction?

>Now let me ask the question within ourselves: Can there be Knowledge

>without Belief and Conviction?

>

>Ram Chandran

>

>

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Shree Ram Chandran wrote:

>Can there be Knowledge without Belief and Conviction?

 

Ram as I understand:

 

To start with your first postulate:

 

Belief is where knowledge stops. Belief is a conclusion about the unknown

without full or no data to support the conclusion and is purely based on

prior conditioning of the mind. When one concludes then mind is no more

available, for knowledge to take place. “ I believe such and such to be

true” and that is the end of it. Hence your first hypothesis is other way

around – belief is obstacle for knowledge. Belief closes the mind. On the

contrary faith is a hypothesis of the unknown (hypothesis is different from

conclusion) based on ones conditioning which is based on the prior data.

Here mind is free from conclusion and is available for knowledge. Mind has

the liberty to change the direction of faith or hypothesis based on the new

information available. In that sense mind is always open. Hypothesis is

required since mind is flow of thoughts and flow involves some direction and

the hypothesis provides a temporal direction for the mind to proceed. If

the direction of the investigation is discovered to be wrong, it is now

better educated and has better chance to choose better hypothesis or the

direction to proceed. Hence your first statement need to be changed to

(1) Hypothesis is most essential for gaining knowledge – In fact whether one

recognizes or not Hypothesis is always involved in the knowledge processes

where in anumaana or inference is involved.

 

Your statements 2 to 4 involve epistemological analysis and it is not that

simple process. Is knowledge apparent or real has been debated by tarkika-s

using shell-silver or snake-rope examples. This includes what is “prama”

–knowledge and what is “bhrama” – the illusory knowledge. Prama comes

under– abaadhita – non-negatable knowledge – called valid knowledge. Some

acharya-s have relied ‘experience’ as the proof of validity. Hence knowledge

based on what I experience is a true knowledge. There are theories about

‘bhrama’ – Based on these, theories of Errors or error analysis is also

presented. Some ascertain that the knowledge is always real but the object

can be unreal – Hence even though the snake is unreal the knowledge of the

snake is real and hence give real effects – fear etc., and false knowledge

cannot give real effects. Madva and Ramanuja to this. Hence they

question Advaitin-s how can unreal Vedas give knowledge of reality, Brahman.

The point here one has to be careful what is apparent knowledge and what

is real knowledge. In my opinion, even some acharya-s have erred in this

aspect. Hence your statements 2 to 4 require deeper analysis to insure

consistence and how it differs from the other definitions already put forth

by our tarkika-s or logicians.

 

After going through some of these analysis presented in the past, I am

beginning to conclude

1. There is relative knowledge and there is absolute knowledge.

2. Relative knowledge has relative reality and has bounds for its

applicability – like classical mechanics and quantum or relativistic

mechanics.

3. There are gradations of validity in the relative knowledge; one is more

valid than the other. The higher one resolves into lower in its limits –

like quantum or relative to classical mechanics.

4. Experience is not knowledge – It can provide confirmation of knowledge,

it can contradict existing knowledge and one requires higher knowledge to

resolve this contradictory experience. Here the knowledge is not falsified.

In the process it does not negate the knowledge but puts limits to the

lower knowledge – and helps to provide development of higher knowledge. Ex

Spectrum lines led to the development of quantum mechanics – Minto-Marlo

experiments on light led to relativistic mechanics.

5. Relative knowledge always being relative will be superseded by higher

relative knowledge that pushes the limits of our understanding of the

nature.

6. Absolute knowledge is absolute – it cannot be superseded by any other

knowledge.

7. Absolute knowledge being absolute, applicable at all times and places and

circumstances – Hence it encompasses all relative knowledge in the process.

8. Absolute knowledge can only be about the absolute, which is also

non-negatable.

Relative knowledge cannot encompass the absolute, however sophisticated that

relative knowledge is. Absolute knowledge encompasses the relative. Hence

when a student of Upanishad asks “kasminobhagavo vijnaate sarvam idam

vijnaata? – Hay Bhagavan, please tell me knowing which I know all ‘this’?,

this absolute knowledge is tought.

 

In our Shurti’s the relative and absolute knowledge are called apara and

para vidya. Hence what I discussed above is nothing new expect put in

different terminology. Based on the above classification – one need not

separate knowledge as ‘bhrama’ and ‘prama’. All are relative or

vyaavahaarika and only the degree of relativity differs. Absolute knowledge

can only be Brahmavidya or aatmavidya that is knowledge of oneself which is

non-negatable and absolutely real.

 

Hari Om1

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>Knowledge and skills are basic tools to complete any task that we

>undertake. There is a clear distinction between ‘real knowledge' (what we

>really know) and ‘knowledge in appearance' (what we believe that we know).

>The gap between ‘real knowledge' and ‘knowledge in appearance' varies

>person to person. Our ignorance is responsible for this gap.

>

>My hypothesis contains the following statements:

>(1) Belief is most essential for gaining knowledge.

>(2) Knowledge will be knowledge in appearance.

>(3) Real knowledge requires strong conviction on one's own belief.

>(4) Truth is real knowledge without an iota of ignorance.

>

>The entire Ramayana describes the greatness of Rama. Rama acquired the

>real knowledge to become the Essence of Truth. Rama undertook different

>roles and duties to establish Perfection. Most important, Rama never

>refused to break a promise teach us the importance of Conviction.

>Now let me ask the question within ourselves: Can there be Knowledge

>without Belief and Conviction?

>

>Ram Chandran

>

>

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hari Om:

 

Thanks Sadanandaji for your illuminating posting on

the question: Can there be Knowledge without Belief or

Conviction?

 

 

I am pleased to read the Advaitic perspectives and

your posting as usual was very educative. Though I

agree overall, I am still left with some lingering

doubts.

 

I believe in the transferring mechanism of knowledge:

the knowledgeable transfers his/her knowledge to the

person without that knowledge.

 

The ignorant person should believe knowlegeable person

that he/she indeed is believable. Any learning process

can't start without any basic belief. This is a basic

necessity in the Guru-Sishya relationship and is quite

funamental in the Gurukul method of learning. I want

to jump 5 feet, I should believe first that I can

jump. At the least, I should believe that I can learn

to jump. Without that belief, the knowledge of jumping

is impossible. My belief will sustain according to

how I progress. Sometime, I may abondon my learning

process when I realize that it is impossible for me to

jump 5 feet.

 

Is it not true that even to start any hypothesis, we

need some basic belief in our 'framework.'

 

I am willing to agree that 'blind faith' will be an

end to any enquiry and hence knowledge.

 

Finally, this thought process definitly helpmed me to

understand how ignorant, I am. My sincere thanks to

Sadanandaji for removing a significant portion of my

ignorance.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: In my last posting, my statement (4) was

incorrect: I wanted to say that - "Rama refused to

break any promise to demonstrate that he is the Man of

Conviction." Inadvertantly, I have added the 'never.'

I should never say never again!

 

 

--- Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda

wrote:

> Shree Ram Chandran wrote:

>

> >Can there be Knowledge without Belief and

> Conviction?

>

> Ram as I understand:

>

> To start with your first postulate:

>

> Belief is where knowledge stops. Belief is a

> conclusion about the unknown

> without full or no data to support the conclusion

> and is purely based on

> prior conditioning of the mind. When one concludes

> then mind is no more

> available, for knowledge to take place. “ I believe

> such and such to be

> true” and that is the end of it. Hence your first

> hypothesis is other way

> around – belief is obstacle for knowledge. Belief

> closes the mind. On the

> contrary faith is a hypothesis of the unknown

> (hypothesis is different from

> conclusion) based on ones conditioning which is

> based on the prior data.

[Guest guest]

 

Ram Chandran [ramvchandran]

 

Finally, this thought process definitly helpmed me to

understand how ignorant, I am. My sincere thanks to

Sadanandaji for removing a significant portion of my

ignorance.

____________________

Hopefully, what remains will go quickly as well

so Sri Ram can enlighten the rest of us! :-).

 

Sri Ram, Ram!

You've got so much charm

Your head is cool

but you heart is warm!

 

Love

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Shree Ram Chandran Wrote:

 

>

>The ignorant person should believe knowlegeable person

>that he/she indeed is believable. Any learning process

>can't start without any basic belief. This is a basic

>necessity in the Guru-Sishya relationship and is quite

>funamental in the Gurukul method of learning.

 

Ram what you are calliing belief is what is faith - In VivekachuuDaamani

Shankara defines faith as:

 

Shaastrasya guruvaakyas satyabudhyaavadhaaraNaa|

saa shraddhaa kathitaa sadbhiH yayaa vastuupa labhyate||

 

Faith is that the statements of the shaastras and teacher are indeed true,

and that faith, shraddha, is essentail for the realization of the truth.

Then only knowledge from higher to lower can flow since the mind is

available to receive.

 

What you call belief is the faith that comes with the trust in the person.

A child develops first faith in his own mother, then in father and then in

the teacher. His faith gets reinforced in the order as he encounters his

teaching from them from A to Z through his tiny experiences in steps as he

grows from day one on.

 

Hence there is no difference in what you call belief and what I am calling

as faith.

 

Belife by definition is blind and is not based on either experience or

knowledge but due to mental biases or steriotype projections which are

neither logically right or intellectually convincing even to the one who

possesses. Archi Bunker character in All in the family is a typical example

of strong beliefs with no intellectual supports.

 

 

>I want

>to jump 5 feet, I should believe first that I can

>jump. At the least, I should believe that I can learn

>to jump. Without that belief, the knowledge of jumping

>is impossible. My belief will sustain according to

>how I progress. Sometime, I may abondon my learning

>process when I realize that it is impossible for me to

>jump 5 feet.

 

This infact is the faith in myself by my previous jumping experince to three

feet to four feet etc by which I develpe a trust in myslef that I can jump

to 5ft if I try. Trust in oneself, what we call self-confidence, comes due

to faith in oneself. This is not blind belief but a faith based on ones

jumping experience in the past. Thus it is knowledge based.

 

>

>Is it not true that even to start any hypothesis, we

>need some basic belief in our 'framework.'

>

>I am willing to agree that 'blind faith' will be an

>end to any enquiry and hence knowledge.

>

>Finally, this thought process definitly helpmed me to

>understand how ignorant, I am. My sincere thanks to

>Sadanandaji for removing a significant portion of my

>ignorance.

>

>regards,

>

>Ram Chandran

>

 

 

Thanks for your kind comments.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hare Harshaji:

 

I like your poem on Sri Ram and your poem reminding

me Gandhij who was very fond of Sri Ram. Gandhiji's

favorite poem is - 'Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram' and he

used to recite and hear with others during prayers.

 

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram

Patit Paavan Sita Ram

 

Eeshwar Allah tero naam

Sabko sanmati de Bhagwaan

 

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram

Patit Paavan Sita Ram

 

Sundara Madhva Mega Shyam

Ganga Tulasi Janaki Ram

 

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram

Patit Paavan Sita Ram

 

Bhajamana Pyare Raja Ram

Patit Paavan Sita Ram

 

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram

Patit Paavan Sita Ram

 

Gandhiji also found Sri Ram to be cool with a warm

heart. He believed that Sri Ram resides in all our

hearts and head to keep our head cool. In the above

song, we can call Him by any name - Ram, Jesus, Allah,

Shiva or any name (and also form) we please. I can

definitely say that Sri Ram did reside in the hearts

of Gandhiji and kept him cool and level headed!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

--- Harsha <harsha-hkl wrote:

> so Sri Ram can enlighten the rest of us! :-).

>

> Sri Ram, Ram!

> You've got so much charm

> Your head is cool

> but you heart is warm!

>

> Love

> Harsha

>

[Guest guest]

 

Ram Chandran [ramvchandran]

Thursday, July 27, 2000 10:21 PM

advaitin

RE: Can there be Knowledge without Belief and

Conviction?

 

 

Hare Harshaji:

 

I like your poem on Sri Ram and your poem reminding

me Gandhij who was very fond of Sri Ram. Gandhiji's

favorite poem is - 'Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram' and he

used to recite and hear with others during prayers.

 

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram

Patit Paavan Sita Ram

 

Eeshwar Allah tero naam

Sabko sanmati de Bhagwaan

 

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram

Patit Paavan Sita Ram

 

Sundara Madhva Mega Shyam

Ganga Tulasi Janaki Ram

 

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram

Patit Paavan Sita Ram

 

Bhajamana Pyare Raja Ram

Patit Paavan Sita Ram

 

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram

Patit Paavan Sita Ram

 

_____________________

Thank you for sharing Ram-Ji. Brings back fond memories of my childhood.

 

Love

Harsha