introductory message

[Guest guest]

Harry wrote:

 

Dear Pakirareddy,

 

Thank you for responding to my introductory message. What I perhaps

did not make clear is that there are two types of knowledge, or two

ways of knowing, of which I sense that you might already know. There

is indirect knowing and direct knowing. The former is characterized

by a separation between the subject of knowledge, otherwise referred

to as the Knower, and the object of knowledge, or the known, that

which one seeks to know. It is this type of knowledge that I think

you are referring to and yes you could describe it as useless if it

does not lead to wisdom, a view that I sometimes share. Then there is

direct knowing in which there is no separation between Knower and

known, the two are in fact One. But I hesitate to say that it is

through this type of Knowing, or Wisdom if you like, that the Knower

and the known become One. To do so implies that there is some kind of

procedural process leading to the attainment of this Real Knowledge,

this Wisdom.

As it turns out, I am left with vague and inadequate terminology such

as "the very experience of Knowing" or "direct knowing" to try and

describe, to try and point to, that experience which you correctly

label as "expressionless". Yes, IT is ultimately expressionless. IT,

whatever IT is, can not be articulated in words. This is the dilemma

that we are all in. Language can not give us THAT which we are trying

to communicate. Language, as I sense you already know, is by its very

nature dualistic. It can only refer to THAT but never give us THAT.

"Direct knowing" or "the very experience of Knowing" are just words,

or concepts, that I use to describe how we might still somehow Know

THAT which ultimately can not be known in any commonly understood way

of knowing. After all, if we see ourselves as Knowers on a search for

that which we seek to know, then the irony is that we can not arrive

at such knowledge for in some strange way we already Know THAT which

we seek to know.

 

with warm regards,

 

Harry

||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Harryji,

As one who has wandered in from the purlieus of

philosophy you will be able to distinguish between what is intelligible

and what is imaginable or experienceable. The core metaphysical

intuition in Advaita revolves around the answer to the question: How is

knowledge possible given our apparent default position of the inertness

or insentience of matter. The answer to that has affinities with the

great realistic systems of the West as developed by Plato, Aristotle and

his mediaeval commentator Aquinas. In short we know things as they are

because there is a sharing of nature or connaturality. As Shankara

often says 'unity is the answer'. The understanding of this and the

mechanisms and analogies by which it is expressed is of course different

but we are dealing with a basic intuition which is human and universal.

The Advaitin regards the intelligibility of the system as being very

important. It corresponds to an order of business:

"The Self is (first) to be realised as existing, and (then) as It really

is. Of these two (aspects), the real nature of the Self that has been

known as merely existing, becomes favourably disposed (for

self-revelation). Katha Up. II.13.

 

In his commentary on this Shankara gives a swift summary of the

intelligible aspects of the teaching but as you remark language has its

limitations being a matter of name and form or limiting adjuncts.

However even to have accepted that sat/cit is the glue of

intelligibility is to already be open to the realisations which have the

cumulative effect of dissolving all limiting adjuncts.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Harry wrote:

>

> Dear Pakirareddy,

>

> Thank you for responding to my introductory message. What I perhaps

> did not make clear is that there are two types of knowledge, or two

> ways of knowing, of which I sense that you might already know. There

 

 

Namaste Michaelji,

 

There is an essential sameness, a unity, at the heart of all apparent

differences. This is our starting point and the point from which we

never leave. But somehow, as the story goes, we appear to "forget"

that this is what we are. Why does this come about? I do not know.

Why does it seem that a sense of self, a sense of separateness,

emerges from a state of undifferentiated wholeness? Again, I do not

know.

All that I know for certain is that I exist. That I Am! But I do not

seem to know who I am, what I am, how I am, or even why I am. I just

Am!

 

with warm regards,

Harry