Knowledge and experience

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Vishal,

 

In your message #33253 of Sep 15, you raised some interesting

questions, about the distinction between knowledge and experience.

 

Well, the distinction only arises when what's called 'knowledge' is

found mixed with ignorance. Then what's called 'knowledge' is not

really knowledge in itself. It's a confusion of knowing with not

knowing; and the confusion produces a partial and inadequate

appearance of something that needs to be investigated further, if it

is to be rightly known.

 

For example, suppose that I hear reports of a mountain range where

flowers bloom with a wonderful shade of red which surpasses all

attempts at description. Then, if I want to know that shade of red,

I can investigate it further in two ways. On the one hand, I can

travel to the mountain range; and there I can experience the colour

of its flowers, with my own senses. Or, on the other hand, I can

interpret and analyse various pictures or photographs and other

kinds of information that are sent from the mountain range, to tell

me more about its red flowers and their special shade of colour.

 

This example illustrates two ways of investigating and improving

knowledge, where it is found inadequate. One way is to travel

personally closer, with one's senses and one's mind, towards a

physical or mental object that is sought to be known. The other way

is to receive information and to interpret what it shows, through

analytic reasoning.

 

The first of these ways is associated with the word 'experience'.

It implies a physical and mental experimentation that takes people

through a transforming journey, as they try out their various goals

and undergo the consequences of their actions.

 

The second of these ways is more specificaly associated with the

word 'knowledge'. It implies a reasoned interpretation of received

information -- so as to remove confusions and mistakes, and thus to

clarify what is correctly shown.

 

But, strictly speaking, information is not knowing in itself. Nor is

interpretation. Nor is reasoning. These are merely instruments

towards a goal of knowing truly. And it's just that goal alone which

can rightly be described by the word 'knowledge'. Truth is essential

to the meaning of this word. What's truly 'knowing' must be true. It

must be knowledge in itself, unmixed with any ignorance or falsity.

 

Similarly, physical and mental acts cannot experience anything

themselves. They are merely acts that lead towards experience in

itself. Whenever anything is actually experienced, it's found

entirely absorbed in the experience of knowing it. Thus, what was

taken to be known is found at one with that which knows. There,

knowing knows itself alone, just as its own identity. All actual

experience is that knowing in identity.

 

So, if we investigate what's meant by these two words, 'experience'

and 'knowledge', it turns out that there's no real difference in

what they ultimately mean. It's just that their more superficial

meanings are differently associated -- one with the yoga or

psychological approach through living action, and the other with the

jnyana or philosophical approach through reflective questioning.

 

In the yogic approach, nirvikalpa samadhi is cultivated as a

non-dual state of absorption that is entered voluntarily, through a

forceful resolution that directs the mind to journey down into its

underlying depth. As you point out, this forceful resolution has its

benefits, in destroying egotistical samskaras and in turning mind's

attention to its underlying source of knowing in identity.

 

In the jnyana approach, the forceful absorption is replaced by a

reflective questioning of two involuntary states where we quite

naturally and spontaneously experience a complete absorption in pure

non-duality.

 

The first of these involuntary states is deep sleep. Its content is

exactly the same as in nirvikalpa samadhi, with all mind and duality

found utterly absorbed in unmixed and uncompromised experience. The

mind is just as baffled by deep sleep as by the yogic nirvikalpa

state; but since deep sleep is entered voluntarily, it's easier for

the mind to ignore, by the blind habit of assuming that it is a mere

blank where no experience can be found.

 

This is the kind of blind assumption that is investigated by the

questioning of atma-vicara. It asks about the continuity of

experience and comes to the conclusion that the so-called

'blankness' of deep sleep is an ignorant superimposition of

obscuring tamas upon the pure clarity of timeless and unchanged

experience.

 

The second involuntary state is the gap that we experience in

between two thoughts, just after one thought has been absorbed and

before another thought has arisen into mind. Again this is a

mind-baffling state of complete absorption into non-duality; and it

is even easier to ignore than deep sleep. Deep sleep at least seems

to carry on for a noticeable period of time; whereas the gap between

two thoughts seems to get over just as soon as it has begun.

 

But, if the mind enquires back into that gap from which its every

thought keeps rising up, it turns out that each gap does not in fact

show zero time. Instead it shows a background timelessness, which

carries on unchanged throughout all moments of experience. All

changing states must constantly depend on its support -- as they

arise expressing its true knowing, and as they are each taken in to

be absorbed back there again.

 

You very rightly ask "how atma vicara which involves mind ... can

help [to] comprehend the ultimate truth. How can it give experience

of that ultimate truth?"

 

Yes indeed, the reflective enquiry of atma-vicara inherently

proceeds through paradox. The trouble with the mind is that it

builds on blind belief, and thus it obscures the true knowing that

is at once its living source and its supporting background.

 

In order to correct its mistakes, the mind must turn against belief.

That's just what the word 'paradox' implies (from 'para' meaning

'against' and 'dox' meaning 'belief'). In order to correct its

mistakes, the mind must turn its questions back into the foundations

of its own belief. It's only thus, by undermining what it has

mistakenly constructed, that the mind can come to a truth that is

clearly known and genuinely experienced.

 

The mind must thereby sacrifice all its constructed picturing,

through which the world is named and formed and qualified. To make

that sacrifice, a love for truth must overwhelm all the desires that

our minds conceive for a variety of pictured things. It is that love

which, finally, takes reason on to living truth and unmistakable

experience.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Ananda Ji wrote -

So, if we investigate what's meant by these two words, 'experience'

and 'knowledge', it turns out that there's no real difference in

what they ultimately mean. It's just that their more superficial

meanings are differently associated -- one with the yoga or

psychological approach through living action, and the other with the

jnyana or philosophical approach through reflective questioning

Namaste Ananda Ji,

As always, you have come up with a beautiful explaination of what exactly do 'knowledge' and 'experience' mean.

Ultimately both are same. Its only a play of words which cause us to see them as different.

I remember the verse 'shabda jalam maharanyam, chitta bhramana karanam'.

I have no other words to explain my gartitude.

Om tat sat

Vishal

 

 

 

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail.

[Guest guest]

Namaste sri Ananandaji !

 

Thank you for another 'soulful' post from your mighty pen.

 

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

 

(the rubaiyat - omar khayyam - 11th century )

 

i partcularly resonated with this para in your artculate post

 

(But, strictly speaking, information is not knowing in itself. Nor is

interpretation. Nor is reasoning. These are merely instruments

towards a goal of knowing truly. And it's just that goal alone which

can rightly be described by the word 'knowledge'. Truth is essential

to the meaning of this word. What's truly 'knowing' must be true. )

 

How true! my Favorite poet philosopher Khalil Gibran says

 

" And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding

line.

For self is a sea boundless and measureless.

 

Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a

truth."

Say not, "I have found the path of the soul." Say rather, "I have

met the soul walking upon my path."

For the soul walks upon all paths.

The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.

The soul unfolds itself like a lotus of countless petals."

 

we have currently witneesed many threads running parallel to one

another on this list ! So many threads that we can weave a magic

carpet of Samadhi!

 

But just as there is only one Sunder-ji ( our ever resourceful

moderator sri Sundar Hattangadi ) the other one being member Sundar

rajsn ji - there is only one *ACHARYA* that is Sri Adi Shankara

Bhagvadapada ! There may be Dronacharya , Bhismacharya ,

Paramacharya and Sayanacharya But when we say Acharya , we only

mean Acharya . SRI ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA OF KALADI, KERALA - NOT

ACHSARYA OF SRINGERI OR KANCHI KAMAKOTI PEETHAM! iT IS THE ADI

SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA'S SAMPRADAYA WE SHOULD FOLLOW ON THIS LIST

DEDICATED TO HIM!

 

Adi shankara bhagvadapada was wel versed in all shastras astras, put

them into practice himself, and established others in those achaaras.

 

 

Aachinoti ca saastraathaan

Aachare sthaapayaityapi;

Svayam aacharate yasmaat

Tasmaad aachaarya uchyate.

 

(courtesy- Chandrasekhara swamigal of kanchi mutt)

 

So. let us not dissipate our time on this thread started by sri

skandaji !

 

Anandaji , this is the punch line which captured my heart

 

"To make that sacrifice, a love for truth must overwhelm all the

desires that our minds conceive for a variety of pictured things.

It is that love > which, finally, takes reason on to living truth

and unmistakable experience."

 

Yes! Love for the truth is like the sweet Alphonso mango that Nair-

ji mentioned , the very thought of which makes me hungry for that

love - that is knowledge of the self .

 

With warmest regards